e-mail is becoming a fos liesed thing for a lot of people. so you really have to adapt. and the thing i'm sure of between 2012 and 2016 theres going to be huge progression in terms of technology. the campaigns that take advantage of it are going to be very much advantaged. >> i want to get to questions if from our audience. i want to ask you to define something you've talked about. steve called it the conservative entertainment complex and you just called it the alternative universe. could you just briefly, what are you talking about here. what do you mean by an alternative universe? how would people in this room know they were living in an alternative universe? how would they be aware of that?

>> it's not unique to this election or republican party. in 2004 many democrats believed he had a device on his shoulder so he would be given instructions during the debate. it's snanty. i think in our politics today both parties want to construct an image of their opponent that is not grounded in reaty. so the alternative universe. there are two. one is the romney campaign had an unrealistic view of what the electorate was going to be and that was one of the reasons they lost. certainly one of the reasons they went in the election confident. th wasn't an act. they thought they were going to win. but there is this view of barack obama. if you read and watch the conservative entertainment complex how could this guy get re-elected because we're socialist and week on terism and we're not honest and tt's

not how most of america cease the president. even those that voted against us, most of them don't see us that way. so that is the problem. i think it's an underestimating of your opponent's strength and the reality of how people view them. d there was a ridicule that i think -- i don't fully understand the impact it played in the election but i know it played a deep impact. and listen, as i said, our party has gone through that before which was a disbelief that president bush could be re-elected in 2004. people saw it differently. >> i think there are a number of legitimate policy criticisms of president obama. and there are issue that is he's advanced in the country that i just disagree with. however, if you go back to mitt romney's book, what was the

title. no apology. inferring that the president runs around the world apologizing for america. not true. that never happened. the birther nonsense t. attempts to delegitimate mies the president that he wasn't born in hawaii, that he is on alien impter in the oval office, the conspiracy began 20 years ago. all of this deranged nonsense had a terrible impact not on the president, but on republicans. for anybody out there that think that is mitt romney running around with donald trump was anything but good for barack obama. they ought to get o to colorado and start smoking it. it has been for four years this

utter and complete nonsense about the president spewing forth that. everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts. now we can have alternate factual realities. to the great disservice of the country as a whole but in e case of this election it impacted in a negative way i think on republicans. we would have been much better off running against the ream president obama as opposed to the sinister pretend president obama. and the total lack of credibility with some of this stuff is repel lant to the middle of the electorate. and when you look at the demographics who is rush limbaugh talking to, white, 65

plus and rural. so you have these talk radio host making millions and millions of dollars a year driving a message of complete and total nonsense into the electorate, a lot of it poisten. mark le vin number three radio talk show host. a woman called up his radio show and had some descending viewpoint and he asked her if she had a gunnd he said get it out and put a bullet in it and blow your brains out. ronl reagan would have been apalled by that if it happened. so you have this terrible tone. you have this actually factly baseless stuff that is spewing out and it has the impact which you have seen with these succession petition that is are

being filed or the people that are all over the conservative blog sphere talking about it's the end of the republic is out of proportion response and i think that's how it manifest itself. >> we're going to yo questions. let's go for a student question first. >> i enjoy watching people like you and people like you make me understand the republican party to a degree. i admit i'm a nate tive california person and i didn't get it. ho can we have this dialogu without screaming at each other. >> c we talk to each other and not scream at one another? >> i hope so.

i think when you look at our politics and look at some of the dysfunction in washington and now we have the fiscal cliff issue that is are fwfer congress and i think it's a real open question about whether we're going to have a politically induced recession. we're 40, 50 days away. you see a lot of turbulence in the markets over the next months but this is a political crisis that is going to be bring about an economic crisis if it doesn't get solved. but for the entire history of the country people do profoundly disagree with each other, have been and sometimes don't like each other very much have been able to sit across from each other and do the business of the american people. and that's what the moment requires now. on the question of screaming at each other we should understand that there are tremendous market incentives for people to

go on tv and attack each other and insult each other verbally and you make a lot of money doing that. for the most part, moderate reasonable voices aren't rewarded with media platforms in the country anymore. and you see a tone and i think that this is a larger cultural issue. it manifests itself in politics but i don't think politics drives it. on the facebook on the comments on the chat rooms anyone who has any level of public profile who says anything, right, left, center the victory all that is delivered to you electronically anonymously is quite incredible. so my view of it is that one of the things we've stopped doing in this country at an educational level in our elementary schools, in our hools is we've stopped teaching

civics and teaching civics doesn't mean teaching what it means to be a democrat or republican. it's what it means to be a republican and that both parties are two of the great initutions the party has and that the competition of idea that exist between the parties when it's working the right way to advance the country forward is a healthy and important part of our life. but ronald reagan talked about in this country we don't have political enmist, we have political opponents. i think we need to understand even to people we disagree with that as americans we are all bound together and we have much more in common with each other than our differences no matter how profound they may be on the ideological spectrum. >> [applause] >> question from a northern

student. >> in this election the most amount of money was spent in campaign ads and yet the turnout was lower than it was in 2008. that seems count intutetive. can we expect lower turnout with greater spending on campaigns. >> the campaign was the most expensive and yet produced lower turnout. is there a connection between the amount of money spent on television ads or is there a connection between the content and turnout or no connection at all? >> there are still millions of votes to be counted. so the expectation when all the votes are counted will have the same turnout in 2008. the presidential race is a

bunch of governor states. in nine states we ran a campaign n 4states we didn't. in 41 states we will have higher turn out. where the candidates were on the ground and volunteers knocking on doors >> i think that is a good thing. the people in ohio, virginia, florida, nevada -- they took this election enormously seriously, understood the unique role they had to play. voters in battleground states understand they have a unique role a lot of us the citizens united to enjoy because they are not and state that will determine the president. >> the super pac's dynamic this time was obviously new and unprecedented. you had senate candidates -- sherrod brown in ohio had $40 million spent against him by

super pac's. we had in the last week of our campaign $100 million spent against the president. that is more than the mccain campaign spent in its entirety. remarkable thing. a lot of senate candidates still one. but in house races it had an impact. barack obamashrod brown, governors -- ey have definition. the spending is a little less nefarious. it's still tough to deal with, but you are not somebody who is now and then somebody drops $4 million on youhead will have an impact. we have never seen spending like this. there is a term in politics called gross rating points, the amount of television you buy. 1000 points means the average viewer sees the ad 10 times. that is the standard. there were markers were --

markets baran at 3000 or 4000 gross rating points. -- ifpublican super pac's he went to cincinnati or las vegas, i spent a lot of nights in hels -- he would turn on the television. it was wall-to-wall political ads. in manof those markets uc two no. 3 republican a for every democrat ad. what we do about this? a huge question for our cotry. there are strong differences on this. we had one individual spend $100 million in the presidential caaign. think about that. one person spend $100 million to try to effect to the next president was. i think that will only continue. there will be a lot of soul- searching on the republican side -- we had all this money and did not produce much. that does not mean it will not produce results in future elections. i do not think it is going away. but this is a big question for

democracy. in 2016, the democrats and republicans were thinking about running for president -- unless something changes, the first question will be not how many volunteers can you put together in iowa, was my economic plan, but do i have a super pac been put together? without that you will not survive. mitt romney won his nomination -- if he had not had a super pac which would have been running against rick santorum. if your hillary clinton or andrew cuomo, not saying these people are running, but jeb bush, marco rubio, pick your candidate -- it is not about could we win iowa, could we build a grass-roots campaign? what is your platform? not saying this candidates will not have to do that, but if you do not have a super pac game that is huge you are not going to be able to win your party mination. that is it really disturbing trend. >> in anyiven competitive

congressional campaign in the country the cdidate committee, the actual campaign of the guy running for office or the woman running for office, has the smallest voice in the race with regard to the outside groups. it is increasingly true in senate races. it is increasingly true ev in the presidential race. a brief follow up to that -- to talk about the senate and congressional and presidential races. is this kind of technique that was owned and endorsed by the supreme court and so on in this election, presidential election, going to have any effect on issue campaigns as well? are we gointo find super pac's that will influence the outcome of legislation or tax code reform or you name it, what ever the issue is? or is this strictly a candidate- driven phenomenon? >> i do not know. i think it will probably be --

somebody can write a $20 million check on every issue they choose. that is the world we are living in. they can write a check for an issue campaign. they can write a check to bribe -- tried to buy a governor's race. bacon ready check to try to control congress. the poisonous than for our country. in mitt romney's campan, the central actor was not the romney campaign but the super pac's. in our campaign it was the obama campaign. may be the last presidential campaign to be able to say that. >> request and from a student? >> given how unpopular the super pac's are, is there any possibility they might be able to produce some kind of way of stopping money in the future sunday? >> given how unpopular the super pac's are -- i am not sure about that promise, you can talk about that, is there any way to stop them? >> i think we had a 30-ar

campaign finance regime in the country that has tried to characterize political money into categories. some of the political money is good money, some of the political money is that money, regulations -- that affected all the campaign fance laws. the citizens united decision was totally predictable as a response to mccain-fine gold. despite my working for john mccain, who had a campaign finance reform position i always thought was blazingly unconstitutional -- we have weakened the political parties and weaken the candidate committees. the political parties have been moderating influences in american politics -- the political parties goal is to assemble aajory, not to advance an ideology. the advancement of an ideology by either party is secondaryis a function of the majority.

now, with all the super pac money there is incasingly ideological mey, increasing the enforcement money. reagan talked about the fact that if you are with me 80% of the time you are not my political opponent, you are my political ally. in a super p world where you have a apostate republican or an apostate democrats on an issue, you will see the enforcement of ideological discipline through the use of the super pac in a primary on either the left or the right. it has the fact, i think, of polarizing the electorate of an increasingly partisan, increasingly ideological way. because we have the first amendment and because the first amendmenwith regard to political money in speeches has been interpreted the way it has, the only way to do business is to allow maximum contributions by anyone to a campaign committee, but it has got to go

to the campaign committee and has to be disclosed. the amounts of money that is flowing to the outside groups is not only a massive recipe for corruption, on an epic scale, think about what david said -- a single individual, but that individual or other individuals, is totally undisclosed, $50 million, $100 million in a pridential campaign. what do you want for $100 million? surely you want something. you can dress it up as i just love my country and this --but it seems to me that what you want to do is put the accountability in the campaign's, and you want to have a regime of instant disclosure. i do not know how else to think about fixing it. but it is an enormous problem. >> considering the candidates and the members of congress to

benefit fr the system are the ones that would have to impose any changes, what you think of the chances of refining any of this? >> there is only a select number of options. obviously, you could have the supreme court review citizens united, but citizens united is on the part of the issue. you could have more instantaneous disclosure, you did have a constitutional amendment process. none of them are easy. what you have seen is both republican and democratic members of congress in the wake of all the super pac -- republicans in particular favorite on the assets are having second thoughts. it is the son control will be stuck there that is just going across the political landscape -- and this uncontrollable beast out there going across the political landscape. it is because they have an agenda. steve is right. the people most, but that are people who do not just stick to the party line -- the people who

are most harmed by th are the people who do not stick to the party line. think about what that means to people -- the only way to make progress on issues, whether it is immigration, fiscal issues, taxes, is people on both parties have been willing to step back a little bit and take heed. if you have the super pac's coming in and and and your political career -- some will still take that step but it will give people pause. there is legislative, there is legal, constitutional amendment, but it is a big concern. for a lot people, candidates want to be in control their own to the extent they can. the fact they are becoming secondary actors in both campaign -- is making people increasingly uncomfortable. >> think that athletes sponsors tips -- maybe they can wear t- shirts, like newt gingrich, sponsored by sheldon adelson.

>> like a european soccer jersey. [laughter] >> question from a non student? >> i would like to hear your opinion of grover norquist and the no-tax pledge. >> a question for steve schmidt -- what is your opinion of the grover norquist no-tax pledge? >> on the issue of taxes, it is true that we are at a historic low of revenue to g.d.p.. it has to come up. because a country with $16 trillion in debt with republicans -- which republicans andemocrats are responsible for has to be fixed. we have to get on to a sustainable economic path. barry goldwater said tax cuts yes, the deficit reduction

first. you have to baby bells. d. -- pay the bills. in your personal and public life -- you want to have a prescription drug benefits under medicare, that is great, you have to pay for it. you once two wars? you have to pay for them, too. we should understand something about the republican party over the last and years. it has been a big spending party -- it just does not want to pay for any of the spending. reset of traditional conservatism requires that we be reality-based on the fiscal condition of the country and understand that the years of profligacy now require increased revenue. the notion that we have hundreds of members of congress bound by a pledge to grover norquist as opposed to their oath of office to the constitution --

[applause] unsettling. we should understand, there is not symmetry between the parties on this question. there is no grover norquist equivalent in the democratic party on this question. it is encouraging to hear speaker banner and republicans talk about the -- speaker boehner and republicans talk about the need to increase revenues. my personal opinion, which is why i am a republican in part, a 40% federal tax rate at the top rate is an awful lot of money to take out of anybody's paycheck. i do not care how much money you are making. i want to seek competitive, flattered, broader tax system. i believed that the purpose of the tax code as a republican is not to create a quality, is not to decide who gets what share of an ever shrinking pie -- is to

collect the revenues sufficient to operate the government. we should do it in the most of -- the efficient way possible. clearly, when you look at the fiscal condition, the consequences of going over the fiscal cliff -- republicans are going to have to abrogate that pledge. it is not conservatism bound to 35% tax rate. that is not one of the and mutable principles of american conservatism. we want taxes to be as low as they can possibly be while running a government that is not bankrupt and in structural deficit for as far as the eye can see. you will have to see republican leaders step up here and meet the president's somewhere in the middle on this to get the country's fiscal path on a path to solvency so we can start to have economic growth again in the country. >> do you want to comment a little bit about what you expect

from the next six weeks? not even six weeks? wever many weeks it is now between -- between now and the start of this booklet. working in the white house limits what you can say, but how you see hislan at between now and january? >> steve is exactly right, all the you are seeing a very concerted members of the house dig in on a no revenues. it is good to see many republicans saying yes. i cannot get into a lot of details -- i think it is unrealistic to expect next week we will get an entire fiscal package button that. the president has been clear -- we are not signing an extension of the bush tax cuts for wealthy. pplause] but we do want to extend them for -- everybody up to two under to give thousand dollars. 98% of americans will get no tax increase.

even if you make $500,000, the first 200 to $8,000 et a tax cut. we think of the devastating -- first $250,000 will get a tax cut. some would try to suggest the fiscal cliff is not a big economic problem. it is. it would be deeply irresponsible, as steve said, to crea a recession through lack of political action. the immediate question -- we want to extend them for most people. but we also want to do is engage in tax reform that would ultimately produce lower rates even potentially for the wealthy. something the president called for in the campaign -- making the tax code simpler and clearing out a lot of loopholes. there is a certain amount of revenue you will have to get to put us on the right physical path. there is a number that roughly as agreed to that any bowles-

simpson, and the fiscal experts said you had to get to. the expiry of the bush tax is not the end of the story. we have to engage in a comprehensive tax reform. we need to engage an entitlement reform. medicare, medicaid, the chief drivers of our president -- deficit. we made a lot of progress, but there is still spending we have to cut. the big bottleneck is republicans in congress on revenue and how much they're willing toome from. democrs wi also have to step up and do some tough things. the notion that somehow these deficits a our debt are not a threat to our national security and economic future is something i cannot -- disagree with more strongly, as does the predent. there are commentators on the left that suggest that -- we should not deal with it at all. we have to deal with it. think about the damage -- let's

say we could reach an agreement. i happen to believe, i am not an economist by training, but we have been around the south to understand -- th would be a great driver for our economy. we are over performing the rest of the world right now. if we can actually -- for the business community and the american people say we have our fiscal house in order for a 20 period and will still be able to invest in education and technology and rearch -- this will create the conditns for our growth to be stronger. this is going to get harry. these are big stakes -- the debt ceiling is concern to everyone. it is more amorphous for the average person -- this means if congress does not act, everybody in the country will pay more taxes. think about that -- $2,000 of

the pockets of most americans, what that will do to consumption, confidence and small businesses -- this could not be more serious. i remain confident because t stakes are so high. we have a firm deadline. we wilmake some progress. i think what we need to do -- let's go for the big deal, let's go for something that we can say for a 10-20 year period, our country is on the way to sustainable fiscal path. the on the way it gets there is for republicans to step back and get mercilessly criticized by grover norquist, and democrats will have to do some things on entitlements that would be criticized by the left. --d -- we just want to argue that is paralysis. that is clearly not the american people on the right now. they need leadership. we only have about six weeks to demonstrate that. but we have confidence. >> a suisun question?

> -- a student's question? >> as a democratic daughter of two republicans, one of which got her bachelor's from the university of delaware and is now a very successful -- how can mr. schmidt saw me on the republican fiscal policy is that -- sell me on the policies the republicans put forward in a way that i can see them as tangible and relatable to what i am going to do as this next generation that is going to accumulate this kind of deficit problem that you have spoken about? >> i am going to shortcut -- and abbreviate the question. a democratic daughter of two republicans -- how can yield sell her on the republican

proposal for solving the debt? >> my son in first grade came hollen and announced that president obama had won his class election unanimously. [laughter] that he was a democrat. [laughter] he told me that with grape jelly covering his face. i said, it is oko be a democrat but you must not eat like one. [laughter] [no audio] [applause] [applause] but look, for republicans, one of the things that was curious about the election with mitt romney -- as someone who is outside of washingto pool had no ownership of any of the congressional republican dysfunction from the dayed congress at all over the last 10 years -- his hands were

absolutely pure onpending. he had the ability, i think, to rebuke those republican -- the republican spending profligacy and democratic spending profligacy. he was only credible in offering a criticism of spending under the administration if he was able to burst -- first talk about republican spending in the area, that we were going in a new direction. i think that a -- i think the republicans confused the word oversight and regulation. sometimes we need regulation. sometimes we do not need regulation. but we always need oversight. on wall street, for big companies -- he wanted watchdog watching everybody. as reagan used to say, trust but verify. i do not care what industry were in.

believing that a lower -- lower taxes are possible, less regulati as possible, to do everything we can to help entrepreneurs, help small businesses, help the job creators create jobs and believe that the private sector creates wealth, not government. the government does have a role in interacting with business and making investment. they certainly do. you look at countries in europe, like germany, where there are effective partnerships between government and industry -- i am not against that. but we should be ae to deliver a message from the middle class of this country that our policy is will be credible, that our policies will lead to economic growth, and that economic growth in the middle-cls -- was are ready to deal with the fact that

you have real wage declines in the middle class over the last 20 years? it is a real problem, and we have had anemic solutions as republicans for it. we want to go back to first principles on some of this up and come up with an agenda, come up with a platform that is an economic growth platform, but for every young person in this room, to david's point -- the debt that this country has is going to land squarely on you, and is going to have a profoundly negative effect with regard to your opportunity and how the economy will grow if we do not get it under control. one of the verdicts of the electorate in this election is that the middle-class, where republicans have traditionally do well, did not do very well in this election. a bunch of reasons for that, but we need to go back to the

drawing board, under the principles of limited government. at what is an economic growth strategy that is marketable to the american people, that speaks to their interests? >> we will take a question from a non-student. this will be the last question. >> i do not know -- to me, it looks like a hurricane sandy did play a part in the outcome. governor christie was an ardent supporter of romney to start with -- after the hurricane, it sounded like he was leaning toward obama. my question to you, did it play

a part in the outcome? >> did governor christie's embrace of president obama on the tarmac in new jersey after hurricane sandy play a role in the outcome in this election? i would like to hear david answer first. >> undeniably not. did somebody turn out the vote for the president in colorado who was not going to turn out the vote? did people switch their views in the closing days? no, we have the best data at -- any campaign has ever had. the race did not change. pre-sandy or post-sandy. there was a set of voters who were yet to make the decision, and they allocated the way we ought they were going to. sandy was not a driver. number two, you could say it dominated the news appropriately for two or three days. the romney campaign had a hard

time punching through that. that may be one tactical thing. the thing -- the notion that somehow governor christie was getting criticism. this is what leaders do. any governor, democratic or republican, and any president, democrat or republican, who would have -- would not have done the same thing ought not to hold office. people need help, that is what we do with the country. it says something about our political situation that a democratic president and republican governor been civil to each other and figuring out how to work together is news. it is a remarkable thing. [applause] but i think that the is a lot -- is a valid question. i'm not trying to say the question is not valid. you did see some in the republican party in the romney

campaign stop, this is because the sandy, this is because we have given gifts to everybody. because the urban areas turned out. that is not why we won. we won because the middle-class believed the president's economic message would be better it for them than governor romney's message. we did a lot of things in the campaign well -- we use technology, had amazing volunteers, and then a lot of people helped, i want to thank them for that. they are the real heroes of president obama's presidency -- the volunteers working so hard. but the reason we won is those nine brands states, people had to decide who they trusted more with their future. it really did not -- we had a bead on this election pop-up. leading into sandy and out of it, we did not see any change. our research and florida, virginia, colorado -- this

election was rigid for a long time. very few undecided voters in play. romney drop in september because he did not have a great convention, because of the 47% -- but he gained all that bk pretty quickly after the first debate. very few voters at play. in reality, states like ohio and colorado, 3% or 4% of the electorate in play in the final weeks. some of them did not bode. -- a vote. those who voted did not vote because of sandy. but the lesson is we could use more of that -- we could use more people of both parties finding opportunities to work together, not concerned about any of the politics or the electoral outcome, but just because it is the right thing for their citizens. >> a brief answer on the question of sandy? >> it is an important point for republicans -- there is a

tendency in campaigns to save the outcome was determined by the last thing that half as opposed to the effect at into- year period. -- the thing that happened over a two e period. we can look at our primary, which resemble a reality show. the only thing missing was trapped for the undefeated. [laughter] -- trap doors on the debate states agreed weaken the fact to be self deportation, the 47%, via the chair. we can look back at the romney coffin unpreparedness to the attack on bain, which he was first attack on in 1994. the three with 18ear dar few feet diffusions, or 18 years at hard you have a chance, that. you can look at the decision we will order money until the end and not to advertising and allowed the obama campaign to

have control over the mitt romney biography over the course of the spring and summer. look at the romney campaign chronologically -- up until the moment of the first debate there had not been a dent moment in the campaign since the spring. he entered that first debate literally looking into the abyss. it was not sandy. it was the accumulation of all these things and some of the degraphics we talked about earlier. of course, kristi, this is why it is so pernicious for republicans -- christie -- this is why it's so pernicious. one of the most popular and dynamic republicans in the country. blaming chris christie for this takes up the table one of the solutions to the problem we talked about. chris christie -- we would be much better opposite party if we had in other tan chris christies, people who are unafraid to stand up to interest groups and the party, agent --

dynamic leader who understood the campaign ended theoment that storm hit. one of the toughest partisans in the race, but he raised his hand, took an oath to the people of the state of new jersey and was there with the president of the ad states, doing hijob. he ought to be applauded for it, not condemned for it. [applause] it is a huge mistake for republicans to do that. >> we're just passed our time -- i have to close this. the opportunity four years from now, whenever it is we're back here, to list predictions made and show you both how right you were -- i want you to name three candidates and ask you wheer you think it will run in 2016. is chris christie going to run for president in 2016? >> i will say yes. >> i assume yes. i will answer this for republicans, by the way. on democrats i will take the

fifth. >> what about joe biden? >> i think -- i am not gng to answer democratic questions. obviously we discussed done with the election. >> that is last week. i am sure he will start seeing people of both parties go to iowa and new hampshire and south carolina. that will start early next year. >> the vice president obviously has a day job. he is a son of delaware, but he habeen a great vice president. [applause] in both campaigns it is interesting -- he was overshadowed by at palin and ryan. the bible role he plays is counseling the president on policy matters, -- a valuable role he plays is counseled the

president on policy matters, but he was going to ohio, colorado, iowa, delivering an economic message to the middle-class th was deeply effective. >> do you think biden is going to run? >> no. >> finally, hillary clinton? >> yes. >> again, i will -- vice president biden, hillary clinton, these are people with bright political future as it did decide to go down that ph. >> i have to be on your time. before we take -- say thank you, allow me to briefly plug the next semester glal agenda program. we will explore america's role in the world, the way u.s. influence is felt across the globe in terms of our military, pop culture, technology, innovation, influence on human rights and promotion of democracy and our role as --

what the global agenda website for information about our speakers after the first of the year. if any of you are not already on the e-mail list for kirk -- programs like this, put your name on the sheik in the lobby. let's please thank our panelists. [applause] good night, everyone [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] x up next, a discussion on some of the challenges facing women balancing work and personal life. then the chairman of cbs news talks about the future of journalism and network news.

later, ted koppel on democracy and the media. >> your career officers, you changed this army so that it became a volunteer army. go and find your soldiers in the labor market. go find in the villages and towns in america. over five or six years, we created an absolutely splendid force of young men and women who are willing to serve their country as volunteers, and they had the same tradition, the same culture, the same loyalty and dedication as any other generation of americans who have ever gone before. they prove themselves in the gulf war, the panama invasion, and they have proved themselves in the last 10 years in iraq and afghanistan. the thing we have to keep in mind is something president lincoln said in his second inaugural address. you care for those who have borne the battle.

that means never forget they are carrying the american spirit, they are carrying the american traditions with them. when they get injured, when they get hurt, or when they just come back to be -- -- reintegrated into society, we have to be ready to care for them. their fellow citizens, they have to care for them. >> more with colin powell and stanley mcchrystal. thanksgiving day on c-span at 8:00 p.m. eastern. just after 9:30, leaders in the film and music industry talk about the impact in american culture. >> former state department official anne-marie slaughter talks about her story in "the atlantic" about women balancing career and personal life. she left the state department in 2011 and now teaches at princeton university.

she is interviewed by linda douglass. this is an hour and 10 minutes. >> i guess we were right that this piece has caused great conversation and touched a nerve in many places. caused a debate to take place around the country. you did not know what you are getting into, did you? first of all, before we start our interview, let me introduce anne-marie and tell you about her background. she is a university professor of politics and international affairs at princeton. if you have read the article you know that from 2009 to 2011 she served as deputy director of policy planning for the state department and was the first woman to hold that position.

upon leaving she received the distinguished service award for her work in leading the quadrennial develop and review as well as the meritorious of honor award from usaid. a civilian service commendation award from the supreme allied commander of europe. obviously very distinguished -- prior to her government service she was the dean at the princeton woodrow wilson school of public and international affairs. she has written six books. numerous articles for newspapers, magazines, many television appearances, and we are very fortunate, as elizabeth was telling you, that she is now a contributing editor to the new channel on "the atlantic." hopefully a great place to explore issues of gender balance. with that much, i will talk to her for a while and then i will open it up to you. i imagine you have many questions, and i apologize, i have a little cold. as we start, even though i am assuming you have read the article, i want to go ahead and

ask you to tell us what you realized, a very short summary. what you realized after doing this dream job of yours and trying to raise your two sons at the same time, and maintain your marriage, i want to throw that in as well. there is always that. [laughter] what did you finally say to yourself? >> the first lesson -- i had been really blessed in managing to have kids and a husband and a career as an academic. i had known the flexibility was extremely important. i did not realize it was indispensable. that is the first thing i learned -- that flexibility had been indispensable to my being able to do what i wanted to do.

once i realized that obviously the vast majority of women do not have that flexibility i understood the choices that a lot of women are making much better than i had before. you can do it -- you can make it work. as i wrote in the article, you can make it work if you are superhuman, rich, and in charge. preferably all three, but at least one of the three. the other thing i learned -- and i said in the article, but i can say it more fully here. i went back to princeton and everybody said, why did you leave? i would say that my tenure was up. it is not unusual, academically. they were fine with that. they said, what is next? i am back in teaching and happy to do it. i would have left anyway even if princeton had given me an extra year or two years because i had two teenage sons and they

need both of us at home, and i do not want to miss the last four years they are at home. i could see myself being devalued in the eyes of the person i was talking to, which i had to say was a new experience. i am used to getting a lot of positive reinforcement for being a role model. suddenly i am getting not quite the look over your shoulder and find somebody else to talk to, but clearly i am going down in their esteem. that was a revelation. people said, what a pity. what do you mean, what a pity? this is something we should be supporting. that really kind of knocked me over. i realized -- i do not think i was conscious of evaluating it, but suddenly people were saying, if you are committed enough you can make it work. i realize, this is not individual, this is structural.

if we really are going to get where we all want to get, which is 50% women at the top, then we really have to make some changes. >> we certainly want to talk about how women get to the top and how they manage -- let's talk a little bit about you for a second more. did you feel like you made a sacrifice? you often hear women tell stories about the choices they make along the way in their careers when they step away from their job or turned down a promotion. i am curious to know whether you thought that was a sacrifice you were making? >> i have been thinking about this word sacrifice, why we call it sacrifice. leaders sacrifice their families for the sake of the nation -- how did i think about it? on the one hand, it kind of felt like i did not know who i was any more.

if you had told me two years prior that i would be possibly in mind for a promotion to higher office -- there are not many offices higher up, they are all great jobs. you are going to say no -- i would say, that is not me. i would never say no. part of it was going after the factor that i was not going to do something i did not want, but i was not going to do it not only because i thought my kids needed me, that is the easier part -- your kid needs you, you are there. it is because i realized that i did not want to look back at the end of my life and have missed the last four, five years of my children at home. i had a son who turned 16 yesterday. parents at my stage -- he is going to be gone before i know it.

and i treasure that time. it is a choice. it is not a sacrifice. it is saying, i want this and i am never going to be able to have this back and i hope i will still be able to have the other. if i cannot, so be it. >> you are talking clearly about a lot of women who feel like they have to choose somehow between a career advancement or a career and their family. but why don't you think men have to make that very same choice? >> my father and brother informed me loud and clear they had made similar choices. i learned a lot. my father let me know he always raised me to have a career in virginia in the 1960's, which was not normal for men in the 1960's.

he saw a man go through divorces. he saw women getting less than nothing. he also let me know if he had turned down a couple of things and he could have more time with his kids. one of my brothers certainly did. this is hard -- there is no question guys make those choices. there are many guys out there who want to be able to make this choice is, wants to be able to actually be full partners with their spouses and feel like they cannot. it is still true, however, that it is much easier for a guy to have the career he wants and a family -- the joys and pains of raising a family. it is much easier for guys to do that and a woman. if a woman does not have kids, there are not many obstacles.

i am not saying there is no sexism out there, but basically we can do whatever we want to do. when we have kids, we are far more likely to have to step back, to compromise. not to drop out -- i hate the term drop out. we only use that term with respect to people who fail high- school and women who decide to work differently. it is much more of a women's issue, and yet to fix it -- it has to be a human issue, a social issue. we know guys feel that way, but if you only talk about it as parents you are ignoring the huge been staring you in the face. >> what is the story? do you think there is a biological difference? you did talk about that in your article. i know this is part of what the

controversy has been about. you say that man when faced with a choice between family and job would to jobs, women would more likely choose family over job. that really seems to indicate you think there is an actual difference other than just workplace conditions between men and women? >> this is so hard. i have been doing a lot of reading. there are some biological differences. nature does sort of make sure that we do bond with those screaming little bundles of joy, right? so there are some biological differences. there has to be, if you think about the way evolution works. but a ton of sociological differences. one of the things i looked at -- if you put a baby dressed in purple rather than a pink or blue in front of women and men, they will interact totally differently with the baby depending on whether they think it is a girl or boy. the socialization starts very

early. i do not know. i know empirically, and statistically lots of women who have written would say, one woman wrote me last week to say, i work and my husband works, somebody needs to be home at 6:00 for the baby. my husband said, let's get a nanny. my husband said, let's get a nanny. i said no. at some point a parent needs to be there. at that point, your view is you have to be there, you are the one to make a trade-off. i have had guys say to me, of course, you'll make the decision so we don't have to. that would be great, except in my household is my husband more often who says somebody has to be there and it is going to be him. i do not know whether that is because we are women or because of structural circumstance.

>> we should talk about the workplace, how that effects the stereotyping of choices. i want to move into another area, probably the most controversial part of the recommendations or making and then talk about the recommendations you are making for rethinking the workplace. you did talk a lot about rethinking the workplace rethinking hours that are family-friendly, the ability to make choices for any parent. i will talk about people who are not parents, too. i promise. but most women have to work to make an income who could get fired for taking a day off to take a kid to the doctor, who do not have any power at all to have a flexible work schedule or to take some time off and be with their kids and then go back to work? we all here in this room are

having a high level conversation, but most women in this country work because they have to. how does this whole discussion of these choices and challenges and solutions relate to them? >> i think there are solutions that would affect all of us that have to happen. let's start with equal pay for equal work, absolutely. until that is really established, that is something. you heard president obama talk a lot about that. we are one of the very few countries in the world that does not have paid maternity leave. we need paid leave. we will have less of it than most other countries -- i understand that. but the idea of the state department, it was actually the pentagon last week, a woman said i had my first kid -- i saved up my vacation and sick days and used them all up. even in the federal government,

we need paid leave. i think beyond that, high- quality accessible daycare. i do not understand why that is not much more of a political issue than it is. those will in fact all women -- most of us in the room can manage without the last one. we can buy it or find it, but it ought to be far more general and accessible for those who cannot afford it. those issues cover the waterfront. there are other issues that do not. the kind of flexibility i am

talking about will be very helpful for women who have a shot at leadership positions and might allow women to stay in the game so that when you have kids and need to do work differently you do not give up on the career you trained for and educated for and started for and are still eligible for leadership down the road. flexibility for people at the bottom of the chain can mean something really different -- it can mean you work 15 or 20 hours a week and you work a very unusual times. you saw the article in "the new york times" last week -- is a

problem, not a solution. there are things that are different and we have to talk about them differently. the other thing, i am not an expert. i am not an expert on labor markets. i am not an expert on gender as a whole. i was writing from my experience. i cannot generalize beyond what i could talk about. in writing a book, i want to find ways to broaden the discussion, but in some ways you have to recognize there are separate problems and there is not one solution for all of them. i am personally not qualified to write about the experiences of all women, although i will try to broaden the debate. >> you have talked about, in places where there could be choices, the kinds of choices the that could start to evolve in the workplace. again, work hours that acknowledge there is a school day.

that sort of thing. these seem like practical matters that could be discussed in the workplace. data shows that family friendly workplace is produced happier workers and often more productive workers, and yet there seems to be even more pressure than ever to work longer hours, to work harder. they call it the extreme job -- a 73-hour a week job, which i am sure around this town is pretty common. is it good for business? why do you think in your experience is it not changing, really? is it because women are reluctant to push these issues forward? what is it that you think is

holding back even a really serious discussion of the kinds of changes that could be considered or contemplated? >> first thing to say, i think there are actual many more changes than many of us realize. this town has a unique pathology in terms of the intensity -- new yorkers, investment banks, people work in law firms, but this town really does have in my view a culture of what i call extreme cases. there is a lot of stuff going on. if you are interested, you should look at the awards that the sloan foundation gives -- 200 corporations doing really fabulous stuff. the pentagon has some very interesting things. a policy where every 10th day you can take off.

the second issue, you can make it available -- here it is, there is princeton tenure, but only wimps take it, not serious professionals -- why do people not have it? you are immediately sent in some way people could benefit from it most in terms of having the time and staying on the career track are not going to take it. then you have to change the rules. at princeton, what we did is if you take it you are off the tenure track -- you have to ask not to. that suddenly changes things. if everybody was getting it, people were not crazy -- you can ask to come up for tenure early. if you want to, more power to

you. i do not know anybody who has gone for that yet. you can change the rules -- you have to change them for men and women. more broadly, and this goes back to our vocabulary, drop out, opted out, i read all the time that anne-marie slaughter opted out. that would be news to my kids. and my husband. i am still travel in half the time, still giving speeches, doing lots of things. it dropped out implies utter failure. the whole idea of saying somebody is working differently or a man who just wrote one book -- i am a work at home dad. i love that. there are plenty of work at home moms. why don't we talk about working fathers? why is it that every time we say

working mother we say mothers are supposed to be at the home and if they are not they need an adjective. yet fathers are supposed to be in the workplace so you do not need an adjective, but if they are taking more time for their kids -- they need an adjective. why don't we talk about working parents? i emphasize vocabulary because social norms are deeply embedded in language. i remember how stupid i thought ms. was, and yet it made all the difference. nobody can tell whether you are married or not. i think ultimately the answer is there is a lot of stuff that needs to be done, but it will not work until we really change the social norms. we do have to elongate career -- you cannot make time. you cannot say 30-40 is your peak career period. and 50-60 is where you had better succeed at the top job and you have teenagers making possibly very bad choices. [laughter] you have to elongate it. you can still get a top job in your 60's, and you can be any point in your 30's, take some time off. >> you do address that in your piece. you say, and it is a realistic thing to discuss, that women who decide to launch a career in their 40's are going to find it challenging. they are competing with their younger selves. understanding that you do not have an answer to all the questions here -- we are putting you on the spot and identify you as an expert on every single field, but if you are giving advice about this particular issue, the issue of being at the peak of your career

and being at the maximum child bearing years, what are you doing? >> partly, i just had a meeting with 30 of our graduate students. we had a late-night meeting and one woman said, you are telling me to stop working and have a baby. i said, no, i am not. you're saying i am 33 and i have to have kids before 35, i should be having a baby. i said it publicly long before i wrote the article, my generation had tons of problems with infertility. i will have a child now. i spent three years, miserable years thinking i had sacrificed my family to my career. the numbers are such that after

35, it is harder -- we have had children after that. i am saying, think about it. you have one, it is easier to work with 1 then two. it definitely is. >> i know. i had one. >> when you are still driving a decent car. i am telling women, think about it. i tell women, think about it, talk about it with your partner. think about freezing your eggs if that is something you can afford or you are willing to contemplate. be aware, or think about the fact if you want a family later, it might not be a biological family.

i have plenty of friends who have made different choices. i was willing to make different choices. that is part of what i tell people. that i tell people, try to think about the idea that you do want to stairstep and think about how you can stay in the game. i do not think you can start -- that is not true. there are many people who have started careers later. by and large it is women who can keep their skills that, maybe reinvent themselves. you can go from being a lawyer and a firm to taking a different job. lawyers can end up at different things. you are not out of the work force completely and trying to come back in. i heard yesterday from a woman who said, she is an academic.

she took a lot of time out. she cannot now get hired. mated 50's without some basis, it will be hard to do. >> we had several of these conversations over the last year or so. they have been interesting, especially with a group of accomplished women here in washington. why do you think it is with women getting degrees at every level that they're still is a shortage of women at the top. fortune 500 ceos, at 3.5% or 4% of fortune 500 ceos are woman. there is the issue of women choosing not to do that because it is a crazy life.

it is but just that, is it? >> know. a lot of people have said, you assume every woman is as ambitious as you do. -- ambitious as you are. >> here is what i think, i think it would be unusual if the distribution of relative ambition -- there are plenty of men and who do not want to be ceos or say they are perfectly happy at this level and this is the right balance. it seems to be reasonable to assume the distribution of women who want to be at the top is the same as men that want to be at the top. that may be a small number in both cases. let's assume it is the same. 5% or 10%, some number there. a still not getting as the same result. let's assume many women are not that ambitious, men are not that ambitious, what is happening to the ones that are?

part of what i can tell you is the responses that i have -- i have hundreds of e-mails. if you look at the atlantic side, there are a -- woman writes to me and said, i came out of school. i got a top job. i was completely ready to take on the world. i got married and had a child and the child was sick or my husband lost his job or there was not a safety net -- life happened to me. i could not make it work. now i feel like i have an failed. i have it failed my younger self. i have betrayed my ideals. many write to me and say, until i read your article, i thought it was my fault. that was crazy. these are women who are totally ambitious. it might have been one year, it might have been a couple of years or working from home one day a week.

i think of times when i was incredibly productive or when i went to your conferences and managed to make it work. that given the system, that was not there for them. until we get to the point where we can say, do you want to be ceo? i will show you a way you can have a family, stay in the game. you might be ceo 10 years after somebody who had kids. but you still have a shot. let's do that and see what the numbers look like. >> this would remind all of us who followed the public debates you have had with cheryl sandburg-- she is urging the women to pay attention to their ambition, to pursue their ambition, which brings us around to the title of the article. whether women can are cannot have it all. the answer to that is, i do not

think so. do you think there are women who are telling women that they can have more than they should expect? is that what you are saying? >> no. the idea of being the poster child for women, cannot have it all. i knew that was a risk i was taking. no. i have mentored women and men. all i mean is you can have a career and a family, too. none of us can have all we want. frankly, i do not want all i want. i still want to be striving for it.

to be reinventing -- there is still something out there i want to do. i do not ever want to have everything at once. it is not about that. it is about, can you have a career and a family, too? yes, you can. if you are in charge of your own time without any question, you can. if you are wealthy you have a better shot at it. being super human helps. highly talented, highly educated -- i gave the speech to rhodes scholars and they say, you really need to publish this. this is a very select group. it will be a lot harder than i think we have led you to believe that. it was easy for me and tell i started to try to have kids, and that was hard. and i had kids and it was hard

until i had to be on somebody else's schedule. it will be harder than i think we have been telling you, and it is not your fault. we need the next round of the feminist revolution. that way you and your husband can do this. women in your 20s, you have a life span of 100. do you really want to peak at 55? that is a long time. you have grandkids, great grand kids, take up golf. you want to still have a career. you want to work in different ways. if we can go from a period of when i got to law school and enter 1982 and they said the judge, a she, or the doctor, she, i jumped every time the professor said that. they were progressives that said that. i knew one woman lawyer and no judges. that was 1982.

i have to tell my students, i am old, but i am not that old. we have gone from a world where my youngest son watched john kerry in the democratic convention and asked who he was. i said he could be the secretary of state. my son said, do you mean a guy can be secretary of state? i did tell secretary clinton that very quickly. i bet she would love it. we have made huge progress. i am convinced we can do this. >> i will ask one more question, because i know we have a big crowd here. i love that story. let's talk for a moment about women and men who choose not to have children or couples who choose not to have families or

same-sex couples who choose not to have families. where maybe they may not be considered to be a family. there are a lot of situations that are not the traditional situations of a mother who wants to go home with their children. we talk about making family friendly workplace rules, for example, a school day, what about those people who have chosen -- people with children are still going to be considered -- the people who do not have children, do the workplace rules of the feature -- are they discriminating against their choices? what's i think there are a number of ways to think about it. if you choose not to have children, i am not saying that people who choose to have children should be promoted the same rate as people who do not. that will not happen. that is a choice to make.

for me, it is well worth the tradeoff. if you look at the supreme court and you look at judge kagan and sotomeyer, there are to the women who will make history. people will be reading their opinions for a century. they will shape the course of american law. it will shape our lives as a result. that seems to me, wonderful for their achievements. there are plenty of people, men and women who say, i will be completely committed to my career. she said, i knew there was no way i could be a classical pianist and have a family. we should respect it an honor it and make sure those people are not bearing the brunt of people with families. they resent it, understandably. it is not fair.

i have a mentee who is 95 and says he goes to every single dinner there is. i would call it, family leave, not parental leave. it can mean taking care of your kids, your parents -- which we have not talked about. it can be taking care of anybody you love. even beyond that, you have to recognize, people who are not focused on their families have passions outside of work. i do think one reason the article went to my role is a lot of people thinking about work and family are not thinking about balance. they're thinking their lives are out of control. they want more balanced. the other thing i say about that is, some of the new family arrangements have unexpected benefits. i have a student who is in a gay couple.

he and his partner live with a lesbian couple in london. his partner had a child. they are about to have another. they have for adults and two children. they are deeply devoted to this little boy, but the point is, all four of them work. you have for adults and one child. there is much more flexibility in terms of my former student who said, i can go and travel. it is not his son, but the child who is deeply in his life. he adores this little boy who is growing up with multiple people who love him. california is about to pass a law making it legal for somebody to have three parents

with all the different arrangements. if you have a step father who wants to adopt you had a biological father and mother, annie permutation of that, why can we not think about that? hillary clinton said it takes a village, and traditionally you have lots of family members. if you have more people in a child's live to love them, that is a good thing. >> thank you for that. now, let's get to the questions. please identify yourself if you would when you ask your question. i think we have somebody right here. >> i am the chief of staff to a member of congress. i have three children. i was a single parent for 16 years until two years ago when i got married.

that was one thing i did not notice come up in the conversation. talk about marriage and families. i do agree there are lots of similarities in terms of the desire both men and women to parent and be there. i think one of the elements of our society is taking care of single-parent, which happen to be predominantly women. until we get to it. we address that, we cannot systematically make it easier. that is one of the issues that i think i did not hear enough about. i can tell you, it was sheer hell managing two boys as a single parent. part of what i do is to create a culture where staying until midnight is not productive unless you have to stay until midnight. i feel that one by one, those of us in leadership positions can make that difference. i also have a personal mission to make sure we focus on single mothers.

it is critical to the fabric of our society. >> my hats off to you. both my husband and i -- we are well aware there are plenty of people who have far worse situations for the longer times, both of us felt like we were stretched to the max. at least we could consult with each other when we were at wit's end as well as having somebody else to pick up the load. i completely agree. i cannot even now imagine what it would have been like to try to go solo. i also agree that we are not addressing this issue. i was talking to somebody yesterday saying the fastest- growing group of single parents -- of sonoma others -- nobody wants to talk about that. neither do the democrats want to talk about that.

we are just not talking about it. we are seeing this grow across the board. if you think about a single parent who obviously has to work and then you think about how much time my kids need help with their homework and they are privileged kids who have two parents at home. and i think, the harder life gets, the more kids need that kind of help. and yet we are talking about fixing the education system, but we are not doing anything to help. this is an area i do not have the expertise or answers. i do agree with you, though, and this is part of what i am wrestling with as i tried to from this book, how can we explain it so it picks up as many different permutations as, you are a breadwinner and a care giver.

all workers are bred givers and care givers. let's assume that. what should the workplace look like given that? given that we assume everybody and it needs to make enough money to support some kind of a household or all of their household and needs to be providing lots of different kinds of care? i am glad for your question. i know i will have an expertise for single moms, but i know if we do not capture that we are missing something important. >> let's go to the middle here. >> thank you. this is fabulous. i want to go back to a minute to the question and the discussion about whether or not as many women ceos or at the top level. one thing that have -- one thing that has not been talked about, do you think there is still a hiring bias? i would probably say there is whether consciously or

unconsciously, i think there is a tendency for people to hire what they are comfortable with and what they see, and that tends to be white men. does the binders of women relate to that? >> the first thing i was sick, i should have said this before, -- the first thing i would say, i have said this before, i have said this previously, the one place where there are 50-50 men and women ceos, ivy league university presidents. harvard, penn, brown, and princeton are women. that is not an accident. that is because we have a flexible schedule. we can do it. i do think there is bias, but i also want to say, given to -- give people the ability to manage their own time, these are talented women and they have all done stuff. they all have kids. the president of brown has a

14-year-old. with that said, i absolutely agree with you there is still bias. in this town the number of times i have heard, she is really good, but, well, she has sharp elbows. that means she had a different opinion and had to do it forcefully because nobody paid attention the first 10 times she said it. there is just always something. there are networks and they are more comfortable. i am not sure if the world was run by women if we were not doing the same thing. we are more comfortable with a certain type of person or a style. there are all places where a person is not considered because they did not visualize it. it is equally true for african- americans, hispanics, gays, we still have a vision. some careers are worse than others. i know about landscape design. the binders of women -- i think what gov. romney and it up -- his whole body language and his tone made people squirm. on the other hand, the fact it was binders of women was pointed out by a number of people, that was a women's group handing him candidates. there is nothing wrong with that. we push people reject i do that all the time where i said, here are five people to consider.

that says to me, you have to push candidates in people's faces or you will hear there are not enough candidates. there was nothing wrong with that particular point. we still have a long way to go. examples where there is a woman ceo in some cases, the next one has to be a man. we had men follow a man for centuries. " surely, we can have a run of two women. that was the exceptional case. to have another woman follow, that is pushing the envelope. >> i want to thank you for raising the debate. i do not think when your article for scam out, i remember silence and my family so we could sit down and read it. it was really wonderful.

i also teach a law class. they often come to me talking about papers. a -- we talk about the work life balance. the wonder how i do it. my question for you is, what advice would you give young people who are starting to navigate the process? would your advice be the same for your sons and your female breast students? >> a very good question. >> none of us have the idea of how we will do it. we were terrified -- we were already flat out. suddenly, you get pregnant and you will have this baby and you are going to do it. the first thing -- they do not come with instruction manual, you do not know what you are doing.

that persists. i also tell them, it is fabulously wonderful. you will discover that very quickly. what i give my sons and a graduate students -- my sense at this point to understand that they can and should earn a living. -- my son's should know they can and should earn a living. we are working on this. they are not going to have any

problem with their wives working. it is the other. what i would tell both of them -- i tell them a little different. my graduate students, i tried to say, try to talk with your mate as candidly as you can. the statement, yes, we are both committed to having careers, that is not the right question. are you going to be willing to defer some promotion in your career so that i can take one in mind?

or we both did for awhile so we can be with our kids. that is the question you have to ask. maybe he does not know how to answer it. at least it has to be on the table. i really tell them, think about that very clearly. then i would tell my sons, look, if you are marrying a woman who is going to have an equal career, you have to start planning for how your career is going to be different. they have seen that with my husband. they are aware that we have an unusual household. it is not unique. it is still unusual. the last thing i will say is, my sons are the ones who came home and announced grows were definitely smarter than boys and this is what they did that

have to work as hard an elementary school. this has to be equal in both directions. >> thank you. i have had the privilege of being a part time cfo and a part-time executive director with small nonprofits. my question is, are women doing enough to ask for what they want? having the skills to negotiate with their employers and having to put it on the table? i think part of it has to be on us. we need to decide what that is. for me, i have a workaholic tendencies. part-time meant 40 or 50 hours instead of 60 or 70. i felt ok about being a parent on a field trip. that is my first question. the follow-on to that is i would love to see the atlantic's

new site as far as having some instruction manual or something in terms of comparing women to negotiate for themselves. >> this great book, were meant to ask. it is great. yes, i think absolutely, i have set of parents should be honest about when they are leaving for their kids. do not say i am going. let's not make work all about kids. the second is, ask for you need. if you do not ask, how on earth do you know what you could get. maybe you well as project i have heard for women who said, i could have taken this job if i could work from home one day a

week. i do not think you are worse off. let's say some number of bosses will say yes because you are so talented hear what of my former students work from home monday week. i do tell all audience members, yes, you must ask. he make an important point here we are not so great that asking for all sorts of things. i had not connected that literature. one thing i say is, you should

ask and the should get the men to make a pact, particularly when you are interviewed. i think that is important. >> i hope he will ride in and participate. >> i am the mother of four children. i am single. my daughter is watching this. i asked her if she had a question. interestingly, it is the same question i was going to ask. >> how old is your daughter? >> 23. she said, i wonder what kind of turns there are four daughters of powerful women. will they take on a leadership

role? i wondered if my children would be willing to work as hard as i. this was the one child who is willing to work as hard. what do you see as trends and what the you hear about that? >> i do not have the data on that. i will try to find it. this is anecdotal. i know plenty of cases where daughters who are very proud of their mothers. i do not know women in my generation, because there were not enough whose mothers were working. that was rare. i know plenty of cases where the daughters were proud of. i would have to say what they hear about from my students and from many of the younger women

who sent to this article to their mothers, i think they are willing to work very hard, but they are not willing to see that much left of their children. it is not about ambition or will i work hard, it is and about, i am not willing -- as i wrote in my article -- to be the model only talk to their kids myself on. -- to be the mom who only talks to their kids with their cell phone a. mom will write a check and try to make herself feel better with respect to the other mothers. i do not feel guilty about that, because i know i am a happier person and a better mom. i do think generational laid there are a lot of women who have been raised by career women and love their mothers but want a different trade off. many women do not want to hear that because they think it is a

challenge to the choices they made, but i do not think it is a challenge. you pioneered this. you did this for me. can we support that? i do not have systematic data. i do not know if anyone does. >> i just want to say for the record, i am here with a covert of npr leadership who are all women. thank you for stipulating at the beginning of your article you were talking about a very small subset of the privileged women who have been able to make some choices. i wondered what you thought about the idea that the only people who thought we could have it all for us.

that we had such high expectations for ourselves, that professionally and personally we could do it all. we tried our we continue to try. i would challenge every working mother in this room who get the invites for the parties or the trips or that kind of thing. i could not have gone where i was in my career without my husband's support. he is vital to what i have done. when i talk to my friends, we feel like, we have to do that because, my husband will not get to it or he will look at it

late. i was just wondering whether we put it on ourselves. the biggest expectations came from us. >> he wrote a wonderful piece. a lot of people talk about being professional lest pyridine housekeepers and everything else. i know professionalized. if you walk into my house he would know in three seconds -- i live with a letter -- a level of disorganization my mother would never stand it.

it is true. how many men do you know that to the holidays? my husband seems to believe in santa claus. he is wonderful. i adore him. i am sorry. christmas would not happen. he always says, he says, you are really stressed. i am going crazy. he is like, you are really stressed. i have had a lot of conversations were ahead to deal with this myself. my husband will not do things the way i do it. he will not.

i had to realize, the collector will not kick cleared for two years. he will not do that. i can ask and to do that. if he takes the kids to the doctor or does any number of things, it will not be done the way i do it. that just has to be. you have to accept it. you cannot have a husband to all the wonderful things that are husbands to and said, it has to be done the way i will do it. i will not work. so i think there is some of that that we have to let go, that baggage. when things work, i have had many days where i said, i am blessed. i live in an era where i can have fabulous work and a fabulous family and another of my grandmothers got that. i am blast. i think this is a realistic dream. if what we are asking for is that we want to be able to have careers are passionate about -- we do not know what the limits are. we never know how high you will get. you want to be able to keep trying. he went to be able to have a family that you love that is

far from perfect -- as one of my colleagues said, it does not an expression of what they used every morning, it is a question of when the screaming starts. i would not give up. i really would not. i have let a lot of stuff go, but i would not give up the idea that we have had both. >> i want to thank you for -- i am sure a lot of us feel this way about putting this out there in such a personal way. i have to say, i am always fascinated that all of this comes down -- i have listened to you in a lot of forms. often comes down to individual people asking how they can get what they want individually for themselves. you made the point in your piece are a lot of these issues are structural. if people are not taking care of children, they are probably going to be taking care of elderly parents whether they choose to or want to or not. nobody chooses -- they are going to get all. people are going to be taking

care of somebody. where is the political accountability? what kind of political accountability is appropriate for people to be asking for? my personal theory on this rigid i will do this thing moderators always hate. is part of the problem and civil rights the freeloader problem that a very few people do all of the work and a lot of people come in behind them who do nothing to advance the changes that everybody benefits from? the question i have for you, can we bring it back to some politics about what kind of accountability should people be asking for based on your experience? >> it is so tangled up with the -- not just a partisan nature, but the workaholic some of politics. people keep saying, why do you not have maternity leave? why do you not have a recognition for the need for family? why did we never have a socialism movement? there are lots of things europe

had and asia had that we did not. we have 12 women senators, not 25, which is certainly not 50. i think the more women you get, the easier it is to start putting these issues on the agenda where a few women are much less likely to put women's issues on the agenda. i do not understand. i honestly do not understand why, as i said, affordable day care -- high quality affordable day care and pay these are not on the agenda.

i do not understand why given the number of women who are in the situation and the number of man who ought to support it, it is not on the agenda. i understand why it may not pass, but i do not understand why it is not on the agenda. i will plead guilty. a lot of women who make it do not want to focus on women's issues. even now, i do development stuff and i talk about social issues, but still i a very clearly can talk about guns and bombs if i want to. there has been an unwillingness to self marginalized by focusing

on women's issues. when this article came out, my mother said, what have you done? what she meant by that is, you have spent 30 years building up a foreign policy career and you have wiped it out. now, people will only know that you are writing about work- family balance. the message is, that is much less serious. i think in some ways, if we could think about these as social issues as investing in the next generation, investing in our society and the ability of people to live the kind of lives they need to lead to be productive and raise children

and go forward, maybe we could find a way to -- he read the article because i was a woman on the policy. that may not be right, but i do not know how to answer it better than that. >> i think we have time for one more question. let me go here. >> i love the debate around your article. the other hot story for me was, the ceo of yahoo having a baby and taking almost no maternity leave.

i wrote about, is this good or bad? not for her personal decisions, but for her as a role model. as we are having the conversation, is that sending a message to your graduate students or to people watching us online that may be damaging? i would love your opinion on, is that public example by one of the few fortune 500 ceos -- is that a bad thing? >> i was of two mines about this. my second son arrived three weeks early. i was like, you cannot show up now. i have three weeks of things to do. i was totally sympathetic to hurt you. on the other hand, i thought, you better hope your child is healthy.

many of us have had complications. the idea that you automatically are going to be able to do that, yes, maybe. many men and women who may have intended to do that found themselves in a different place. i would have been a lot happier if she had said, if all goes well. and she acknowledged the idea that it often does not go well with you or your child or whatever. i think more generally i would have been happier if she had been a little more -- there are women that feel that way. i am possibly guilty in some ways. if she acknowledged that there is a whole spectrum here. the policies have to allow for

the spectrum. the policies cannot be around that case. i remember a colleague who said, i will be back in class in two weeks. there are any number of scenarios under which it would not have been. i think we should not judge anyone women. the policies have to be under the spectrum of experience and choices that that may necessitate. >> this has been a great discussion. i cannot tell you how much we have appreciated your discussion. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the name of this place still resonates in the hearts of the american people.

more than any other name connected to the civil war, except lincoln, gettysburg reverberates. americans retain the knowledge that what happened here was the crux of our terrible national trial. even americans who are not sure precisely what transpired on these fields know that all the glory we associate with the civil war resides most probably here. at 8:00 --tonight help a bleak year -- most probably hear -- palpably here. >> thursday night at 8:00. >> from the walter cronkite school of journalism at arizona state university of phoenix,

this is just over an hour. news. walter cronkite served as the evening news anger for nearly 20 -- >> good evening, everyone. the cronkite school has a special relationship with cbs news. walter cronkite served as the evening news anger for nearly 20 years becoming known as the most trusted man in america for his objective, straightforward reporting. he was the face of cbs. three years after he stepped down from the news anger desk, the school was named in is honored. that grew over the next 25 years. today three years after his passing, he continues to be our guiding light. it is truly a special honor to have jeff fager with us tonight to talk about the traditional values of journalism and how those values remain the cornerstone of cbs news today in our digital age. he became the chairman and february 2011. cbs news won a peabody award under his leadership and was the only network to grow its audience. he also has relaunched cbs this morning with a focus on a harder

news. he has served as executive producer of 60 minutes giving it a new graphical again emphasizing more timeless stories. he also grew the show's online presence by revamping 60 minutes.com and launching the ipad app. relaunched cbs this morning with a focus on a harder news. heas served as executive producer of 60 minutes giving it a new graphical again emphasizing more timeless stories. he also grew the show's online presence by revamping 60 minutes.com and launching the ipad app. under his leadership, 60 minutes reaches an estimated 121 million unique viewers a season. more than double that of the nearest competitor and more than

any other prime-time non sports program. previously, he served as executive producer of the news. part of the team that lost 48 hours. he has received the highest honors including 33 emmys, 7 peabody awards, 3 investigative reporting writing and editing award, and the paul right to award. earlier this year the hollywood reporter named him one of the 35 most powerful mostin media. the graduate joined cbs news in 1982. he started his career at wbztv.

it is an honor to welcome jeff fagar. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you a lot. that was very nice. it is great to be here. for so many reasons -- one, because it is cronkite. he is a patriarch of ours. i want to talk about him a little bit. we arran this, i think, because we figured post-election would be a really good slow news time to come out to arizona. god knows, we could not predict the director of the cia would resign this week and the worst hurricane or storm to hit new york for 100 years hit two weeks before. i am really proud of the election coverage, which was on the tail end of the storm

coverage. and i was proud of the storm coverage. you have hundreds of people reject as a one of the great things for e students to look forward to. when you are with a terrific news organization. i love what i saw here in terms of the broadcast being put on and erybody putting on what as one of the greatest facilities i have seen. the spirit -- you will see it and the local newspaper -- how important it is we are still public servants. i think so much of what happens in a news today, people forget that. they forget -- you are here as a public service. that is an important part of what we do. the idea that everybody of the hundreds of people that wor at cbs news during the crazy week of hurricane sandy has an example -- each has their own

story of difficulty at home. all of them came right to work and ran into the story. that is what happens time and time again in the news business. you cannot predict what haens tomorrow, and that is part of what i think is exciting. requires some sacrifice working holidays, running into a storm when your own house had a tree come down on it. everody had a story. i have worked incredibly hard and made us all proud. that really is a big part of what we try to achieve it. we are proud of what we are doing. in that case, we are proud of public service. then the election can, and i am proud of that too. everybody stay sober? it really was a culmination for

us. we had taken over -- in charge of a cbs news one year and a half ago. these big stories happened. that is a priority of our organization. when a big story happens, we are ready to jump on a dime, including the petraeus story, and that is as big as it gets. to cover it in a way that helps the viewer better understand it stores of our day. to me that really says thatin a nutshell. we are approaching a story in a smart way, it focused way that helps people better understand what it is that is happening in the world. i want to talk aittle bit about -- because so many of you will be heading out into the

world about my own beginnings, which are very different. i am envious of this because i knew i wanted to be in the news business. i love the storytelling and i loved it venture. i did not know anybody in the news business. i was very lucky one month out of college and got a job in my home town of boston at a telephone -- television station. they needed somebody to sweep the floors and i grabbed it right away. i was the lowest form of life and the television station. they were giving the last slice of cake to my cameraman's dog before me. i think that is important in a couple of ways. you get to do everything.

when i was doing the low-level job, i was able to observe everything. i was able to watch everything. i think humility is a big part of the news business. we are just reporters. it is another thing that it's anotherin our world as the sr system. anger people have become stars. that is and congress with just regular reporters. -- anchor people have become stars. you might be less than you think you are going to be at some point, that is actually a good thing. but the yourself in terms of being able to learn everything you can around the. i was watchg because they had a radio station. i got to work for them and write to their copy for free in my spare time. my job was enough to pay the

rent. my first editorial job, i did not get paid for it. it was a great experience. it turned into some much more in such a short amount of time. there is no onpath in our world. everybody does it differently. everybody does it differently. i learned how to write in college. my major was english. i do not ce what he read about -- people always ask what you are doing on this platform. no matter where you end up putting what you do o there -- i think we are lucky in the television business because we translate so well online. i am an optimist about the news business. it is about telling a story. it is about reporting. how good of a reporter are you? how well can you dig things up?

how well do you find things out? that is so much a part of what we do. it is so important. as long as you are connected to this great university, it has so many great things to offer. this program is about 25% of what you will do here, make sure you make the best of the other 75% in terms of english, history, and things you need to be good at when you become journalists. you learn things here you will not learn elsewhere. you learn them as a reporter in the real world. you never stop learning as a reporter. the curiosity of most people who end up in this business is part of what drives the. -- of what drives you.

i ended up cbs news. it was right at the time the cronkite rather transition was happening. i was hired to produce the overnight broadcast, which was a new creation called "my watch." they needed people who knew how to produce a newscast. i was really lucky. i got the job. it was amazing, because it was a way for the network -- i was 27. i felt like i knew how to do that. i could produce ain broadcast produce a short period of time i was able to move my way up into the news. i arrived at a time that was really pretty stringent terms of history because there was tension in the air.

people were still uncomfortable about walter having stepped down and dan rather stepping in. i think there was competition and jealousy, and the. i think on walter's part there was some regret. he he was such an icon even in his own day. what made me excited was that, through all of that, the cuure of storytelling and reporting did not change at all. in some ways, it gradually did start to change at cbs. but, for me, i could not believe it. i felt like these people were so professional. i was scared to death. that is a good thing, i think, that you feel like you have a lot of experience and you have

done a lot of reporting and producing and you understand television news, but you are surrounded people who are really good and challenge you. i love that. i felt like i was able to learn some of the more traditional values you will at thechool that started in our building. i will talk about those a little bit as we go. hi also got very fortunate because i ended up overseas within about three years. .ased in london i recommend it highly for students. think about an international assignment. there are very few things as challenging. people do not know, cbs, but we do not care about helping you. you end up in situations that are difficult and challenging. you get better because of it. based in london, we covered half the world. you end up going into scituate

-- situations, everything you coulimagine. in the aftermath, i ended up back in new york. i eventually made it to the place i could not believe, "60 minutes." a chance to work for don. he would say, "everything from fred friendly and walter cronkite." what an amazing collection of mentors. don felt insecure around them. the same way i felt when i first got there. but he studied them carefully and learned so much. when he created "60 minutes," he did it with their thinking in mind. murrow used to do hours that

were profiles, celebrity- driven, then he would do serious investigations. documentary's. his idea was to mix the two into one hour. it was a brilliant thing. we have gone through highs and lows, and i will talk about that a little bit. it was the arrival that i realize this is not only real reporting and closer to the original values, which don has protected, but people were so about the story. the first thing don hewitt said to me, we do not have any god damn meetings. just go out and do the story and everything will be fine. how refreshing.

so many of the other things i learned from him, and i studied him very carefully, he was an open book. he helped make our story is so much better. the things he believed in, that goes against almost all the conventional wisdom you hear about in the news today, we never did audience research. we still do not believe in it. i do not. audience research is what drives a lot of news decision makers today. i suggest to you that you are skeptical of whatever research that comes your way, because so much of it will tell you that they will do stories like that on television because they do not have, the audience does not care that much. i know serious journalism -- journalists who run news organizations who would not cover the war in afghanistan

because they believed it was a turnoff according to the research. there is something dead wrong about that if you are in the news business. 100,000 americans risking their lives in a war zone. really do believe in something don taught me and murrow taught him. don produced the news with walter cronkite. you cover any story you believe it is important and you make it interesting. it is on the reporter. it is not about, i will avoid that story because the audience does not want it. our numbers may go down. or, the younger demographic will not like it. that bothers me anymore. -- even more. you want to do stories anybody wants, every age group. if you make it interesting, and i love it when mebody says, i

watched "60 minutes" on sunday and i did not expect i would like that story. you sucked me right in. we have a real benefit to be able to offer three very different alternatives. we can do a story about the president followed by a story about a writer, followed by a story about a flood or an adventure in some far off place that mixes well with what we have done earlier. if you did not like that, you might like that. we try to get you to ay around. we work really hard at that process. it is part of our tradition. it is 45 years of "60 minutes." the way we do it has changed very little. don stepped down nine years ago.

that is how long i have "60 been running "60 minutes." when i took over, i could not believe how many people wanted to be on "60 minutes." it is a very important lesson in reporting and news which is, the definition of news, which i always think of in terms o, "news is anything somebody is trying to hide and everything else is advertising." that may be extreme, but there is a lot of truth to that. somebody who wants to do in interview with us who is running for office, they want to advertise their position, that is fine. that is part of the job. that is the difference between news and the bigger category of journalism. we want to cover whatever we

think is interesting to our audience. but the idea that somehow we do not cover something because we think it is a turnoff or is not what our audience is interesting is one of the biggest flaws. our culture has become so celebrity, it is overkill. i was the decision maker about what is going on on "60 minutes," we had already hit a rut that there were y too many evergreens. "60 minutes" would get story's done in september that could run

in march. it would not be as relevant. i came from a news background and i felt we shld be more relevant. jon stewart said, i like your broadcast but i do not like your slogan. he said, we do not have one. jon said, you do. se drowsiness." [laughter] i thought that was great. to me, as a newsman, i thought he made a good point. say to stories thatre celebrity-driven. encourage people to report in depth about the big stories in our day. we have become more current.

we try our best to dig deep into big stories. it is a real big difference in terms of what you will run across in this business. people who love to report on stories nobody else is on, which does not count me, or people who love to make a mark on a story that everybody is on. to me, that is where i think "60 minutes" stands out. you think you know about a story, and here we come along with something that surprises you. there are recent examples i love. the other part of it is what i am proudest of abo "60 minutes" is the idea you can go into really tough journalism, take on tough subjects, challenge authority, if you are fortunate enough to be at a place like cbs where it is valued, and a lot of companies

do not value its as much because it is risky and expensive and dangerous to go into war zones with your reporters. those are all things week. i am proud of because we continue to do it and we like to to -- to turn things upside down. chris mentioned my favorite number, 120 million. i care about the numbers. weet to do what we do and we get to keep doing it because we are doing well. it is a different philosophy. if you cover what is important and you cover well and make it interesting, the viewers an audience will grow. that number, last television season, the number two shows was "american idol" at 100 million.

there is an appetite in america on primetime and everywhere else for real reporting. i will show you a tape. this is a great tape. it was made by one of the best editors that ever worked at cbs news, who is also a producer. so many of you can do threor four things. that is so good. we asked warren to put together a collection of the best dovecote "60 minutes" since we went -- the best of "60 minutes" since we went into hd. for fun, for pride. 45 years in television, the longest in history. what it shows you is not only the depth, but the adventure and

how it all comes together in terms of our appreciation for great photography, great video, excellent editing, and i also think when you watch this tape you get a sense of relevance, that if it mattered, he went on "60 minutes" to talk about it. it is about a 10-minute tape. you can play it now. ♪ >> in coming. >> i wonder if i walk out here tomorrowwhere is ts place? >> this was the moment that altered the course of japane history. >> there are not enough living

to take care of the dead. >> it is a natural habitat, these ice floes. >> you stored all sorts of classified documents and then released them to the world on the internet. you are screwing with the forces of nature. >> 26 years old, running this giant company. do you ever pinch yourself? [laughter] >> it is a tough name to live with. >> it is. >> maybe he was good. >> no one is that good. >> i started out as a crook and ended up as a crook. >> it is hard for people to believe that you did not know. that you must have known. >> when he ran the cia's

counter-terrorism center, he came up with the idea of imposing harsh interrogation techniques. this is orwellian stuff. the united states does not do that. >> congressman? >> members of congress got a free pass on insider trading for years. >> it is not true. >> i would act upon an investment. >> not illegal. >> not anymore. following our story, congress passed a law permitting its members for trading on non- public information. we began investigating charlatans. our report started a federal investigation. if convicted, they could face 20 years in prison. >> you became a made man when you were formally inducted. >> after a few minutes in the

toxic recycling center, the gangs who run this place want to keep it a secret. >> if ever get a shot at bin laden, we will take it. we got it. you will not see bin laden walking on this earthgain. world collapse carr >> the idea -- collapsed. >> the idea of being here for 69 hours is terrifying. >> the mt tragic thing you have ever seen. >> it was the deep water horizon. >> at the height oa hiss, a huge explosion. i remember thinking, i am going

to die. >> we cannot do it. >> it was the worst feeling i had ever felt in my life. i was sure i could do it. ♪ [ticking] >> i remember it coming close to six months. i was saying, i cannot believe i am out of work as long. >> i cannot afford my house. >> tell us how much your pay has been cut. >> 50%. >> we cannot make it. >> i wrote a sign, "please help." >> do something about the economy. >♪

>> when does this end? >> we have a plan. we are working on it. >> is getting worse. >> the people on talk shows to look away. -- on top chose to look away. >> if the use -- if the transactions are so useful, how come they brought down the financial system? >> my parents fight about money. >> i told my life might -- my wife, this is not america. is full of wonderful people. we will see if they can help us. ♪ >> it is tough on us. [ticking] >> i will ask personal questions.

do youmoke? curse? >> it is a question that has to be answered. >> you are very friendly. >> what is wrong with you? >> i do get it. >> you are simpletons. >> i ask you aimple question. >> did you think you would get away with that? >> that is an excellent question. >> you are you? >>, a times have you been indicted? >> do you have any friends? >> you have got it wrong. >> how does that make sense? >> what do you think is going on here. >> i am gay and jewish. >> what kind of republican are you?

>> afghanistan. >> health care bill. >> the unemployment problem. >> we have got a lot more work to do. >> why is it taking so long? >[ticking] ♪ >> when we flew over this, i said, this is it. ♪ >> nearly everything africa has to offer in one place. ♪ >> if the river were to dry up completely, we would lose about 400,000 animals.

>> there is curiosity. what are you bothering me about? >> we are here to find lost chapters of human history. ancient shipwrecks. >> i love it. >> we are trying to make it accessible to almost anyone. >> we found the first dinosaur embryo. >> i do not believe it. >> some are more simple to make than others. >> this is engineered. >> for the first time in 40 years, my left and did this. -- hand did this. >> israel. it works. >> you are an idealist. >> it is about seeing the world for what it can be and not what it is. [ticking] >> ready, set, go.

>> oh my god! >> plenty of life on the seafloor. ♪ >> wow. the only way off is up. >> the world according to sean. >> it is not sad. [ticking] >> there is a suctive nate to the music. ♪ >> it is the story of a people and it grabs you. yes. ♪

>> it is not my cup of tea. had it all ♪ have ♪ >> what should i call you? >> i did not want to wear clothes today. >> on the stage, you are a seductress. where did you learn that? >> i am a woman. like experiences. -- life experiences. ♪ >> such a fleet the person -- >> such a flaky person. >> action. >> you think some day we will be 3d? >> we will have the same

interview but in 38. god help us all. >> looked at best. -- look at this. >> oh! >> what am i going to do? shut up? you will never shut me up. >> how are you doing? >> i am doing well. good to see you. >> "60 minutes." >> i am anderson cooper. >> we will be back next week with another addition of "60 minutes -- edition of "60 minutes." >> next, on "60 minutes." woohoo!

[ticking] [applause] >> thanks. as you can tell, i am proud of our broadcast. just wanted to see if there was some other -- you know, so, you know, part of what i love when i see that tape is the collection, and all the different aspects and variety and how rich this can be. it never felt like a real job to meet. that is still my primary job. it is really important to me. is an amazing feeling an

experience that you have been with a place for 30 years, to be asked to run it, the whole organization. from the moment i took over as chairman and david became president, we made itlear to the organization that the goal and what was happening here is that "60 minutes" is taking over cbs news. i think about walter because i am sorry he did not live to see that happen. he was really proud of "60 minutes" right up until the end. so were a lot of people at cbs news. it was a great moment for those of us who grew up in the organization knowing that those values and all of the things i have talked about tonight in terms of how we run "60 minutes" and what we care about, becoming cbs news.

what happened next shows on the air. we rebuilt the evening news in the first six months. scott became the anchor. scott became the managing editor for real. i think very much that, for me, the most important reason i wanted him in that position is that we call ourselves and we consider "60 minutes" to be a reporter's shop. everybody is a reporter. just so happens that six or seven of us are on tv. everybody is a reporter. in the walter cronkite days, there were called cronkite and company. they were all reporters.

somebody in the anchor chair should be a real reporter, and scott is the most experience to ever work in cbs news. he was 60 years old before he came in. he covered every imaginable story. twice as much as any anchor who ever anchored. i am talking about all the way back. not even close. he was not smooth and polished. this is not someone who has ever anchored a broadcast before. that was not what mattered. he was going to make sure on a daily basis that when those stories come in, that they are accura, fair, well-reported, well-told. that is a job that is important in every newsroom. have to be done by one or two people. -- it has to be done by one or two people. i think the result shows. it is the same philosophy.

we do the news well. we cover what is important. we make it as interesting as we can. it.cut the fluff out of attack the audience will come they will learn something about something important that they care about and they will come back for more. a year, four months later, the cbs evening news, when he started with 2.5 million viewers behind them, just over 1 million behind now. we expect we are going to close that gap all the way. it does not feel right that somehow we became distant third. cronkite did build our television news organization. he really is the patriarch.

he would be proud of this broadcast. i know people who produced the cronkite broadcast and he loves what we are doing. which -- we set t to change the morning program in the same way. everybody wants to copy "the today show." why would we at cbs news want to copy anybody? we set out to build a broadcast that fit our identity, what w are about. for us, it is a original reporting. we were saying that so much that the folks in our marketing department said, why do not just say that. it fit. we want to make sure we created a new oadcast in the morning that avoided all the regular stuff that seems to be on morning television and pursued

real, important stories and told them in an interesting way. the same philosophy. a lot of people were surprised we chose charlie warose becausee is a night sky. i love him. he is one of the most amazing reporter interviewer's there ever was in this business. it is an alternative to everything else that is out there. also, it is starting to pick up traction. the first thing we wanted to do was kill the people outside -- get rid of that as an element. we did. we do not have weather in the morning. our viewers get it at the local level. you do not really care what the

weather is like 1,000 miles away. that has happened. the other thing i think is important to talk about briefly before we open it up to questions is that spirit on "60 minutes" that i love. you will run into it from time to time. everything works better when it is a collaboration. i saw the collaboration today that you put on every day. it was terrific. it seemed very seamless. that is so important. i still believe. we have mike wallace on our floor. i just want to tell one story. i think it translates over there. a tough question here and there. mike wallace was off the air

exactly the way he was on the air. a good friend of mine, when we were young producers on "60 minutes," mike came into his office and said, i want to -- i want to do a story about willie nelson. i thought, that is unusual. i am used to doing hard stories with him and that is a good thing. it is nice to do something different. i askehe asked, what got you interested in willie nelson? "why the f would i want to do a story on willie nelson? " [laughter]

classic mike wallace, pardon me, i had not realized i just wandered into the toy department. then, storming down the hall, "good luck with your next career move. " the fall of the berlin wall and the attempt to make capitalism -- the ory finished and he said, where do you want it, kid right between the eyes? i learned so much from that. he hated it. it was terrible. he set about helping me fix it and made it into a story that eventually aired. when you end up running your newsrooms, look for it. the directness, it is not personal. it is about making your story is better. the collaboration and the spirit

in the newsroom goes right over the air. the vier sees and feels it. thank you very much. [applause] does anybody have any questions? i would like to take them. >> i am a junior. i just had a question. "the insider" was in flushing. t having been there, being it is hollywood, how accurate was depicting thethe picking - internal? should that happen again?

>> a great question. i love the film. that was one of the great stories ever brought into 60 minut"60 minutes." it depicts don to pec hewitt. he was in a very difficult position. the corporation said, you cannot hear this story. we still do not know why. we suspect the owner did not want a-tobacco story out there -- a negative tobacco story out there. he signed a contract to not say any negative things about tobacco.

the public health was at stake. don could have resigned and it would have been a big star. -- stir. it was a dark moment. it was a low moment for cbs news. as low was the moment that "60 minutes" broadcast the bush documents story. those were two very low moments. credibily is what we sell. as soon as we make a mistake, in the case of a tobacco story, that was not a "60 minutes" mistake, but a corporate mistake interfering with the story. when you do make a mistake, own up to it. go out of your way. we do make mistakes. can that happen again? yes. it could happen again. there are corporate interests

that interfere with news. we do not have that at cbs. we have an amazing broadcast who really wants us to pursue the stories. we offend very important people on a regular basis. that is our job. our job is to seek out the truth. not everybody wants the truth. >> hello. i am areshman. i am wondering how you managed to stay so focused on journalistic values in a time where industry is so focused on nsationalism and money-making and competing. >> im into competing. i appreciate your question. how did we stay on the values? it is what we represent. i do not kid myself. somebo could come in and ruin that overnight. we have seen it happen. "60 minutes" could be cheapened. not on my watch.

if they ever wanted to -- not o the watch of e peopleho work there and believe in it as much as me. i depend upon them so much for advice and counsel and things that are close to the edge. steve, lesley, scott, so many people who have poured their lives and careers into this because we all believe in it. producers who have been there for years. we have a huge number of people. allison hired half of them. i will give you her phone numb. [laughter] there is a huge number of young people who really wanted to be part of it because they were driven to participate in at kind of a place. there is a long line who want to

work -- of people who want to work at "60 minutes." so, we believe in it. sometimes, you have to put it all in a line. if you believe in it. it is going well. if it is not gng well, that is the responsibility i feel i have. we need to do well. we need to make sure we tell our stories well. we need to make sure it is interesting so captivate the audience. you will like it. they get used to it. that is how you get people talking about your broadcast and come back for more. >> hello. how are you? >> could carry >> good. good. >> i am a freshman.

you take out the flaws. -- fluff. what is the effect of that on a national level? how do you think your show has affected individuals, both nationally and worldwide? >> in the news business or regular americans? >> cove in the personal lives of americans, but even further in government decisions or things that have changed because of your show. >>hat is a good question. what you do has an impact. there is no better feeling than on monday morning they are talking about our story that was on last night in congress. that happens on a regular basis. shining light in places where it has not been shined, selling regular americans what other

peop are going through. we showed the village in new york city, which got ravaged by 9/11. a plane had crashed right in their village. now the storm. steve was pursuing nancy pelosi because we did a story trying to find out how come members of congress can invest in wall street and not in stock, that is related to businesses they are looking at on capitol hill, without having to abide by the rules you and i do in terms of insider trading. that law got changed. the change happened right after. that was just this year. it is a really good question. it is part of what motivates people in the news business.

you can have an impact. you feel a lot better about what you are doing when you are working on something important. i can tell you all so i worked in a lot of places in local news in my six years before i got to cbs news and i learned from places i did not agree with their philosophy. there is so much to learn. you find out what you do not want to be part of. "news, we do not want to go out there to make e news. we want to scare people." it is my favorite line. [laughter] i learned so much on that job and other jobs on stations with different philosophies. >> with american attention span is shrinking, what do you think the future of long form

storytelling is? >> if you consider "60 minutes" long form, which you would, probably, i think it has a very good future. i will tell you why. don hewitt, who created the show, had a terrible attention span. that is why we thought he wanted it to be 12 minutes and not the whole damn hour. he could not sit through it al we translate so well online and it is part of where we have gone with "60 minutes." i love our tablet app, it is on the ipad and iphone. you can watch any of 500 now and this week's broadcast for 12 minutes if you are getting on a plane, on a train, wherever you are going, where ever you are.

in terms of broadcast journalism, video translates so well. a 12-minute story is a nice amount of time. you do not have to watch the whole of 60 minutes. you can watch your own. you can watch a story. i love that child of time. there is a big future in it. quality storytelling on every platform, whatever it is, whatever length, is always going to be in demand. really good, hh-quality content is hard to come by. >> hi. i am a senior. i want to further, lead off of

his topic. because of short attention spans and people getting more news online, do you feel "60 minutes" overtime is a stepping stone to further your coverage to a more online-based network news platform? >> yes. it is not really to move it there. it is to be in both places. online is nowhere near the audience we are getting on broadcas but yes. i love it. overtime is a really good -- i .m glad you brought it up you i cann tell you how proud we are of it. it was born of our frustrations that we send our reporter out into the world to become experts on the story they pursue.

it is an amazing luxury. you have three months to report and produce your story as a producer. you come back to us from a great adventure or an interesting story and oftentimes, the stories that get pulled, to me, one on one. that was the genesis of "60 minutes" overtime. we started a deal with yahoo! in 2004, which was the very beginning of video online. that is hard to believe. it was hard to watch one minute that did not stop. there were clips. it was incrediy on fulfilling. that is such a limited and not as valuable a place to go. you can watch a six minute

story that is the original content. if you like this or you saw on television or if you did not see it on television, they often stand up on their own. there are reporters telling stories about something interesting that did not make the peace or would not -- piece would not. you could do an hour on some of the stores. it is a great vehicle. we can do so much more with our other broadcasts that are similar to overtime. we are going in that direction. it is infinite. the amount of opportunity to expand what we do online. a lot of you will come up with those ideas. >> hi. a junior. when the public says the media is to blame, how do you react to that? >> to blame for what?

>> everything. as students, we hear that when we are out covering the stories. >> i am sure we are to blame on a lot of fros. i hear it, too. i believe, and i get asked this a lot, that, even though you see this sort of strange more thing of -- morphing of news channels becoming partisan, or appearing to be, or leaning one way or the other, they are moving toward the market with the news people always have. there have always been newspapers take out a kind of audience. eir editorial page. i do not think that is as dramatic as people make it sound. the growthf fox news or msn bc is based on a real audience

out there of americans who are looking for something. we, as news people are a reflection of america. america is not a reflection of newspaper. -- news people. the level oself importance that reporters should never have. it bothers me. it is not unusual. we get blamed for certain things, but we are just trying to report what we see. as newspapers and news organizations drift in k, to pander thin to a particular audience, it is because that need exists. america has become more polarized and more separated

somehow. it will be interesting to see. i am fascinated by the process in washington right now. we are covering it intensely. if there is one thing that stood out for me in covering the election, it was not so much the two different sides of america. those extremes are way out there. most americans are pretty reasonable. almost all americans are sick and tired of this ghting in washington. they want some kind of agreement to be reached, even to show us they can work together. we look f that as americans in our government. figure it out. figure it out together. all of those things are mixed into the same story.

in the next three months, the lame duck, which is not very lame duck, congress figures things out. it will be very interesting to see how it is dealt with. >> we have time for one more question all the way in the back. >> this better be good. >> i am a junior. my roommate is a firefighter. even though he is on call, he always has a schedule. crazy news could happen at any time do you know any other journalis were this call ith th? >> we all go throughf it. -- through it. i was working from it o'clock at night until 8:00 in the morning. that was hard.

i had just gotten married. i know of very few people who have not done that shift at one point in their career. when i was overseas, we would disappear for weeks at a time from our families. i have a very strong marriage to this day. my wife is very independt and loves being there. in a lot of ways, when you are separated from your spouse or family or your real life, and you are off in some words own stock for weeks and months at a time, when you come home, everybody has different expectations. it does not always work. in our london bureau, there were more divorces than in other -- in any other workplace in cbs news easily that is unfortunate.

-- easily. that is unfortunate. there is no doubt. as a news person, it is one of the great things. people loving whathey do would say that in any work. a lot of news people would feel that way, that it is not a real job. i think you hit on what is one of the big sacrifices. my friend is a photographer. he will be home for christmas for the first time in four years. with his wife. you will find that. you want to pour yourself into it and learn every aspect, the way i love that happens in this institution, as you go through school, when you t out into the real world, that is what will happen. from time to time. you will have to make decisions about your life that will not be as easy as you might expect world

.

you want right wing facts, we have got it. you want left wing facts, we have got it. >> how have you made it clear for people there was a basic impulse on behalf of the reporters to tell it straight, but cable is where you are getting the opinion. cable is where you are getting the opinion on the networks. they say, you are as biased as everyone else. did you will not admit it. >> i think the problem is they are not putting the money into the kind of news coverage that

is vital to a democracy. the money would help. when has the world ever been a more dangerous place than it is now? i happen to believe at the worst times of the cold war, the fact of the matter is there was a balance between the great powers. these days we need information from the third world more than before. we do not have the reporters. >> that is true. i am sorry to say at this time we have to run out of time. they have got to pay respects for people like us. i want to thank our audience

who has been so polite tonight. they have been able to see us through the magic of the internet. they can actually see us, not just on cable, but they can see us through the internet all over the world. it is a magnificent thing, and i want to thank our guest. [applause] let me close with the following thought. we are all dazzled by the digital age and understandably

so. given the speed and access of everything live is truly amazing, but every now and then i worry we may be losing sight of the fact that this new technology is only a tool. it is a tool for the dissemination of what we have discovered. it can never be considered more important than the content of what we have discovered. hourly daily broadcasts, the story that need selling, a crime or of this judgment that needs exploring. i asked our their indian and new edward r. murrow -- are there any new edward r. murrows? we need that. journalism is essential to democracy. he once said, this is no time for fear, and he was right. rise up.

ted and i have done the best weekend. now it is your turn. use these modern tools, but use them well. now once again, good night, and good luck. [applause] you have been warned. this is your time to ask questions. there are two microphones. i see one over there. if you get up to ask questions, that is fine, and the idea is to ask a question.

do not make a speech, because i will cut you off. i will be very nasty. why don't we start off on the right? >> how are you doing? can you assess the coverage of the israeli-palestinian conflict? is it clear who is doing the best job? >> there has been a war going on in gaza for well over 10 years now. -- congo for well over 10 years. it has cost more than $5 million. -- 5 million lives. 5 billion people alive died of starvation, disease, have been driven into the jungle, more

than 5 million people. we have barely even noticed it. i mention that because journalism is frequently affected by national interest. to the degree the perception of what happened in the congo is less important than what happens in the united states, we do not cover it. we are engaged by what happens syria, but i do not know if shed a great deal of light. i know you began by asking what is happening in gaza and what i think about that. >> yes. >> any time israel is involved in a story, did becomes

excruciatingly -- id becomes excruciatingly difficult to cover, because there is a sense of identity in this country with israelis, and many reporters, old friends and colleagues of mine used to be criticized for taking an anti- israeli point of view. he spent many years living in the arab world and had a sympathetic. of view to arabs. -- point of view to arabs.

i think what is happening in gaza right now meets in the definition of tragedy. the israelis cannot be expected to stand by while their cities are rocketed. on the other hand, the idea that the israeli defense forces are equally professional, the number of casualties on the palestinian side are going to be much greater. they are leaving an impression there is something unfair. this is the time you need correspondents who have spent years in the region, because by and large, you ask what i think of the coverage. i think it is surface. it focuses on the casualties.

you do not know what the possibilities may be for agreement on the sides. i think that is one thing we have lost in not having correspondence to report from the region year after year. >> it is interesting that a couple nights ago, and abc world news tonight had a tour during another story while the gaza story erupted, and she had a big intro. they gave her about 45 seconds to do the story, and you could see she could not get it out.

it was difficult, so that is yet another dimension of trying to make everything right size, even and alan -- an analysis from a reporter who really does understand that story. it would have been wonderful to hear more from her. >> yes, please. >> you mentioned an interesting point before he cut you off about our intelligence services. >> he does that all the time. >> it was the moment you were talking about how our intelligence services are may be stretched too thin. you were intimating we were not only having a lack of journalists of we were stretched. i thought it was interesting

because the americans trust the pedagoguery. >> essentially the same thing is happening within the intelligence community, and that is the perception that technology is an adequate replacement for human intelligence. there is a perception you can get anyone from anywhere. you can reach any part of the world in 18 hours or less, and by virtue of the satellite, you can report instantaneously, but

that is a substitute for having our reporter on the ground for years. the same thing has happened for ages. the intelligence community has suffered budget cuts, and people say you can get the same kind of information with intelligence and reconnaissance when having a unit on the ground gives you a third dimension you cannot get by technology. >> yes please? >> i am a retired former service officer. i ended my career shortly after afghanistan at the state department with a press officer who has never worked with the press.

-- with a press officer that neve worked there. i am wondering if those of you in the networks ever noticed it went away, and do you think that is part of the weakening of the ability to report stories with great object committee oversees? >> we became friends after i came back three years in indochina and was assigned as a correspondent. i have been blessed throughout my television career with having competitors. as you may imagine, you do not travel with people from your own network. did you travel with the opposition. i was impressed with these men's performance.

during the time we travel together, henry kissinger and i in the middle east, we always have somebody on the plane, and i remember a woman who was a reporter, and she did not talk much. she was a very good reporter. i rather suspect you do not have anyone traveling with the secretary anymore, and that is a plus. -- that is a loss.

>> i want to share something. being a competitor, when we travel in the middle east, i had a bad condition, and we would arrive with our overnight bag. abc news picked up very often my typewriter, my overnight bag because he could see i could not take it up. that is a competitor. >> i was hoping you could talk about the activity. -- objectivity. where does yours come in? i use the example of global warming. how would you cover that story

in that time when most of the community appears to be pretty solid on one side. who do decide is the most credible people in that discussion? >> i was for almost 26 years the a anchor of the managing editor of nightline, and i was deaf to reporters who would give one opinion for, one of opinion against. it is the laziest form of journalism in the world to the degree one side or another can be ascertained as having the facts on its side, you have an obligation to report back. i do not think there is an obligation to say, on the one

hand, newtonians believe and apple will fall from the tree and hit the ground and there is a law simply because an idiot and claims the other was. objectivity it does not mean taking one of this side and one of that side. your job as a journalist is to do the reporting, and to analyze it, to put it into proper context, and if the overwhelming scientific community, or the scientific community overwhelmingly says there is global warming, the use -- do you go in the direction of some other intelligent voice?

why not? you do not do it now with equal time. >> when that was first directed at the networks to be objective and fair, what they would do, as you remember, they would put a republican up here for 30 seconds and a democrat for 30 seconds, and they felt they were telling the story, but they never got at the essence of objectivity as you have so well described its tonight. >> my name is catherine rodriguez, and i am a junior journalism major at gw. my question is in this volatile climate, we have noted several instances where major news networks rushed for information that happen to be wrong. how do we balance accuracy with

the desire to be the first to break the news? >> that is a good question. >> i have been lecturing about this desperate approach, which i think is often the driving engine, particularly of 24-7 cable news. somehow when a major story broke, i still remember moments of huge self congratulations. if we could say, we have the story one minute 38 seconds before, and i remember saying at the time, i do not know of anybody out there who is sitting there as we were sitting

there with 10 television monitors aware of the fact cbs had something first, and we were third. if you are watching television, are you switching madly between the channel 7? what was bad 25 years ago is horrendous today. what if i am watching cnn, and i am not constantly flipping back? i have teenage grandsons who seem incapable of watching something for more than eight seconds at a time without

switching to another channel. did i answer your question? >> not really. there is one more year. this will be the last one, because we are out of time. i want to apologize to everyone waiting to ask a question. when this is over, why don't you deceived mr. koppel -- besiege mr. koppel? >> i have an on-line news site that is usually considered to be dull and boring, and we have these not just to disseminate but to get the information out,

and throughout the evening it seems we have been given this choice of charlie sheen reporting and important news presented in a way that is the goal, and we have so many tools at our disposal, why do we need to think of important news us something that cannot be cool and engaging and fun and even profitable? why does it have to be presented as something dull? >> you may be surprised to learn i do not entirely disagree with you. for many years i used to tell the staff there is no story out there we cannot do it in an engaging, interesting way. i think you have made a mistake

of interpreting what we have been saying when we refer to important that important means dull. on the contrary, i think those are the things that are most important, and it is our obligation not merely to say, here are the facts, do with them as you will, and we have to make the movie it interesting. if interesting means controversial, it's interesting means argumentative, it's interesting means sacrificing objectivity, i guess -- if interesting means sacrificing objectivity, i guess you are right. >> i do not think you will ever

be seen as dull. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. you are as wonderful as ever. >> shibley telhami on the latest on israel and hamas ceasefire. then, poverty in the united states. after that, jacqueline pata on sequestration and what it could mean to native americans. your e-mails, phone calls, and twets. 7:00 eastern on c-span.

_ >> next president obama's former campaign manager david plouffe and steve schmidt talk about the 2012 election. both mr.plouffe and mr.schmidt attended the university of delaware. >> welcome back to the national agenda program. i'm director for the center of political communication. this is the final program of the 2012 presidential election season. i'm very very pleased that all of you are here tonight and i know that's a tribute to our two guest speakers this evening. two years ago in the wake of the shellacking president obama took in the midterm congressional elections, the architect of the president's 2008 victory david plouffe stood on this stage and predicted the electorate voting in 2012 would be more diverse and younger than it was just two years earlier.

he talked then about the growing latino electorate and he predicted that the obama campaign in 2012 would have to take advantage of those demographic opportunities. plouffe also predicted on this stage that the american people in 2012 would have had enough of republicans who were like glenn beck, sara palin and rush limbaugh. we are just one week past the 2012 election tonight and we now know all those predictions proved accurate. even fox news on election night had to swallow hard when it's frequent predictions of a republican victory proved to have been based more on wishful thinking than analysis of the real world. and our other speaker tonight

steve schmidt also predicted on this very stage after the last presidential election that the republican party would have to remake itself in the face of demographic changes rapidly unfolding in the united states. both playoff and -- plouffe and schmidt are alumni along with joe biden. [applause] along with joe biden who has just been elected for a second term as vice president of the united states. [applause] together, they are the reason the university of delaware has been called the epicenter of politics. and since then another alumni, governor chris christie of new jersey has demonstrated his

brand of politics based on reality whether than wishful thinking. he embraced president obama after hurricane sandy to the dismay of some in his own party who saw his reality based actions and undermining the g.o.p. candidate. these days steve schmidt is at one of the largest political firms. since running the mccain campaign in 2008 he has been on campaigns around the world. and you saw him during the 2012 u.s. campaign. he was campaign manager for the landslide reelection of

california governor in 2006. before that a top political advisor in the white house of george w. bush. he attended the university of delaware from 1988 to 1993. david plouffe crossed paths in schmidt in the late 1980's. he completed his political seasons degree and finned two years ago. he has completed two presidential bids. he was appointed as a senior advisor to the president in the white house in 2011. he attended the marks high school before serving in a wide variety of state and national political campaigns. i'm going to ask the two speakers this evening to speak and i had to decide who is going to go first and i decided to use a standard that anyone in this audience could mean and that is whoever has won the most recent presidential election gets to speak first. i think that's the fair enough thing to do so please welcome david plouffe and steve schmidt to the university of delaware. [applause]

>> thank you for joining thus evening. it's great to be back where steve and i had our interest in politics fostered and have such great memories of the university and its faculty and the community. we talked on the way over here that we wanted to keep our remarks brief so we could spend a lot of time in dialogue with you. because i'm sure you have questions about the elections that just passed and what is going to happen in the years to come. by the way, ralph, given your introduction, had we not won i'm sure you would have reminded me of the things i said that weren't true so this was much more pleasant. it takes a long time to reflect on an election and really understand what happened and more importantly what ha means for politics going forward. i think there's been a lot of

discussion of demographics and that's an important part of our country because that's changed rapidly. but that is not the core reason that the president won reelection. obviously the american people take presidential elections seriously as they should. and they needed to think about what the president was offering in terms of economic direction, foreign policy direction. had to reflect on the road we've just traveled in the last four years and as voters do, they spent a lot of time thinking about the future. so in the next four years who can i trust on the economy, on social issues and foreign policy. and we live in a country that is evenly divided politically and we have close elections. our victory in 2008 was a landslide. it was clear this election was going to be closer, given the economy and divisions in the country. with that being said, we still

won electoral college, maybe not a landslide but a clear majority. our popular vote is 3% which is a healthy margin. and i think the reason we won is people understood where we had been economically. all of you have lived through the recession. this is not something that is an academic theory.

everyone painfully lived through the recession. we are beginning to recover from that. the economy has created jobs over 5.5 million jobs which our economy is far too week but the electorate said i'm beginning to feel some progress. does that mean i'm satisfied? of course not. but i'm beginning to feel some progress and i think people thought it was a risk to go back and try economic policies that led to the recession in the first place or contributed to it. i think there was a sense like on energy and environment and education that the president had a vision for where america needs to be in this new century where we've got rising competition in china and germany and india and if we're going to have an american century we cannot come in second place to those countries in technology of the future. and i think that played an important role. there was a sense that the obama vision was one that they thought better suited this moment in our country's history. and there is no question on social issues whether it's women's healthcare or immigration. there was asset of issues that for younger voters was important to think about the

kind of country and kind of president they wanted representing them. so on all those questions people wrestled carefully. i think that's why ultimately enough people in enough battleground states chose the president to continue this journey we're on. quickly in terms of demography. we don't know this for sure but we could be seeing different elections in on years and off years. the election in 2014 is going to be different than presidential electorates. and the comments i made were predicated on what we thought would happen in a presidential election. you had latinos turning out. the president won the cuban vote. the first time infer florida. you saw young voters actually exceeding in most states their turnout from four years ago to the surprise of most analyst. you saw african turn out even

though the excitement was four years ago, you saw a real determination there to support the president and you saw african-american rise in a lot of places. that is getting a lot of attention as it should. you have to understand electorate to understand presidential politics. but the president carried most of the key suburban counties t. states that are the four heaviest in white population the president won all four of them. so it may be convenient to say we drove good turnout in the latino and african-american community but it's more complex because the president won swing suburban voters and women voters all over the country. presidential campaigns are complicated t. pursuit of 270 electoral votes is complicated. how we won 332 is complicated. it's not just one thing and we'll talk a lot about what that means for politics going

forward. one thing i've learned is you better not overlearn lessons of elections that just happened because our country and our politics are changing so rapidly the important think now that the election is over hopefully we'll have a moment in washington where the leaders come together and on tax reform and education and immigration and fiscal policy, now that we're no longer the issue of we have a reelection, that's done. barack obama has run his last campaign and you have divided government. i think the mandate the american people was sending is work together. focus on us not what divides you as politicians, focus on us.

and i don't offer misplaced optimism often. because in washington you can get pessimistic quick. but i do have confidence there is path way on tax reform, on continued education reform, on doing some smart things around energy. and that's the test of the president and the leaders in the senate and houses. can they come together post election. and for a period of time put your needs and the needs of the country first. and i have a great deal of confidence we'll do that. so i look forward to talking to you about the election that just happened. [applause] >> thank you for having me back. it's great to be back at the university of delaware and thank you for coming. when we look at this election in 2012, republicans should not

be diluted about the magnitude of the president's reelection victory. this was a big night for the democrats not just at a presidential level but also look across the country in the u.s. senate seats. and for my fellow republicans in the room to quote john mccain it's always darkest before it's completely black. but as we look at this election, there's a couple of things that i think are astounding to focus on. the last presidential candidate who achieved 60% of the white vote in the country was bush and he received over 400 electoral votes 24 years ago. in the 2004 bush campaign we received 44% of the latino vote

in the electorate. we were having discussions in the white house in 2005 that we were within the territory that we were able to get to majority status with latino voters in the country. and if you look at the election results where mitt romney is below 30%, you can really see the republican's party deliberate strategy to analyze paying off. and so when we look at as a party and we look at the demographic changes in the country in the west but also give consideration to the fact that some of the fastest growing latino states are north carolina and ohio and not necessarily the southwest border states and states in the rocky mountain west.

we also have to look in this election at the fact that we have given up as republicans five u.s. senate seats in two election cycles because the nominees in those seats were manifestly unqualified to serve in the united states senate from an intellect you'll level and knowledge level and social extreme level and their candidacies were rejected not just by moderate swing voters but by republican voters as well. if you look at the functional majority of democrats in the senate. when you nominate people like murdock in indiana, mr. i'm not a witch o'donnell. ken bucken in cal colorado. it's impossible to advance a conservative agenda in the country because to do that you need to be able to win elections. of's talk about this idea conservatism tonight a bit.

because conservative for too many voters in this country has become synonymous with looniness over the last couple of election cycles and we have a problem in the republican party that the democrats had a deal with in the 1970's and 1980's when our policy makers, our elected political leaders were scared to death to stand up to the special interest groups in the party. and chiefly in the republican party, that's the conservative entertainment complex. conservatism is a serious governing philosophy that has served the country well over its history. conservatism is not a cult of

personality where we define who is and who is not a conservative over their fidelity to outrageous statement that is rush limbaugh makes. the mark of a true conservative isn't fidelity to rush limbaugh stigmatizing bullying and calling that young laid a slop. electede for our officials in the party to stand up to it and say enough is enough. and until we change the tone, we're going to have a very difficult time even getting to first base with voters. a latinos don't think you as party or the elected leadership of the party like you very much then you're not going to hear your message on economic growth or your message on education reform, they'll stop at the place where they don't like us very much so i won't thereon them. part of the problem we have is

if you were to play a word association game with our elected leaders in the congress and you were to say latino the answer would be illegal immigrant as opposed to lieutenant colonel or doctor or silver star winner or teacher or mayor or governor. and so until the republican party can begin to talk to this community through a prism of respect, understand that the contributions that they make the country a stronger place, that the strength of our country has always been in at least part because of our diversity and the strength of immigrants, we're going to have a really difficult time in this election. yearseen married for 12 and outside of my marriage in a country of 330 million people, i have no idea how any other american use less birth control with the exception of rick santorum. and i don't know why he wants

to talk about it or why he thinks it's a national security issue and why the republican party is doubling down on issues like this. the prolife position is a serious moral position and i think the fact that on this issue the country is closely divided and there is no evidence to suggest that being prolife is a disqualifier to being elected president of the united states. but surely we must understand the difference that being prolife doesn't default you into anti-contraception and women in this country particularly young women don't want to here contraception lectures from white over 50,. we are the limited government party. and we see too often from the leadership in washington a version of big government

conservatism where the government is peering through the window into matters of sexual orientation, into life style choices and issues like contraception. so there is an intellectual dissidence when people are talking about tyranny and we stand on the precipice of a thousand years of darkness but at the same time we're voting for people in state legislatures who are mandating trance vaginal probes for illegal procedure. it doesn't make sense and it's being rejected and will continue to be rejected across the country. if you look at the extreme social agenda put forward by republican candidates, i ask you how do we possible win in a state like colorado that's legalizing marijuana when our candidates are talking about legitimate rape? can't be done.

so we have a lot of soul searching to do as a political party on this issue, on these issues. we also have to understand as republicans when we think about the middle class in the country. what was our offering in this election to the middle class voter? wage stagnation in the middle class is a real issue. declining opportunities in the middle class are a real issue. what is our answer to it? totainly we're not going create economic growth on a platform of we're going to get rid of medicare for everyone under 55 years old. our messages stick no carat. we don't have a forward vision of economic growth, how to create it or sustain it that's in the interest of the middle class and we paid a tremendous

penalty for that over the course of this election. so the republican party as a demographic problem. it has a message problem. it has a policy problem which and then in the expect cushion of the campaigns it has a technology program. the obama campaign in 2012 was ten light years ahead from a technology perspective being able to identify voters, target voters, turn out voters. and republican party through this defeat is going to need to go through a cycle of invasion to catch up and pass the democrats in our ability to do that over the next couple of years. what i would say lastly is when you look at the republican party today on issues from gay marriage to immigration to education reform, republicans have always thrived.

we have embraced our small government, limited government and the principles of federalism which have endured and served the country well for over two centuries. and as we look ahead into the next election, i think that it's important for us to have some optimism as republicans that we will have a class of serious governing officials who have solved real problems and have reality based solutions to issues of healthcare reform or education reform or how to grow the economy that are consistent with the actual solutions to problems that we face today. so our ability to go and communicate to all manner of voters in this election and to deliver them our policy is conditional or our ability to reach them through the prism of

mutual respect, tolerance and understanding. and the more intolerance that is emanated out from some of the talking heads in the republican party, the more we will continue to be shut off and shut down and not even be in a position to make a sale to voters out in the electorate. so after a defeat like this, there is always a period of soul searching and it may be that republicans have to lose another election or two in order to understand that the party has to meet voters where they are and not the other way around. and the democrats have struggled with this in the past and ultimately bill clinton was able to rebrand and change the party's image and the republican party remains to be seen who our bill clinton will be. but at the current trajectory we're going to have a difficult time winning presidential

elections for the future absent an ability to communicate in a more effective way with these groups. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you both very much and i want to thank both of you to come tonight. all of us in delaware are appreciative of your presence here. >> i know we've got to talk about the future but there are a few things we've got to get out in the public about the election. i want to ask each of you about whether there were oh s-- moments in the course of the campaign. you were watching the first

debate. how many minutes into that debate did it take you to realize that this was an oh s moment? >> i figured you would go there ralph. i was talking to some of the students and for us in the barack obama experience we always have our moments of near death. so in a way this election was going so smoothly it would have been unusual if we landed the plane with no turbulence. so this was an inevitable thing to happen. i think the history of presidential incumbents. if you look at president bush's first debate --

>> an inspiring performance. >> it was an unmitigated disaster. even president clinton's first debate wasn't a success. he needed a second debate to stabilize. obviously, ronald reagan won one debate in 1980. we don't want to continue that stat in history. it's not like we were naive about the challenge. for a lot of reasons not all of them i can be candid about tonight. we did not execute. myself and others could have done a better job and the president himself had an off night. didn't make any mistakes by the way. it's not like we had one glaring mistake but not a solid performance. mitt romney gave a solid

performance. you look in 1994 he was a strong debater. he rescued his candidacy in 201. we knew this was going to be a strength of governor romney and particularly after the 47% debacle just showing up on the stage and not drooling he was going to come out strengthened. he was polling in some battleground states at 42, 43, 44. an impossibility. mitt romney was going to get 67, 68, 69 in states like virginia, ohio and florida. we knew he was going to come out of the debate with some strength. we were not going to win the first debate. he was the only person on stage to have something to gain out of the first debate. we had a poor performance and he had a strong one. we said this publicly and most people didn't believe us at the time. the race did not fundamentally change. our support level stayed relatively constant. all that happened it was gains

that he would have made over october. he gained it all of a sudden. he accelerated those gains. it excited the republican base and helped them raise money. we wouldn't have designed it this way but the structure of the race never changed. and in the nine battleground states that would decide the presidency we identified two years ago. we have a much better chance in getting to a win than governor romney d. obviously the 47% on the other hand was something the republicans did not put on a terrific convention this time. i thought the mccain convention put on a better convention four years. so the 47% was an oh s on the other hand. >> despite the fact you

anticipated the polling results to continue in that direction any way, maybe it all happened at once, did you have to make any sharp readjustments or did you say at that moment don't worry about it it's okay, we're fine? >> we had to ensure we didn't have another first debate so that was mission number one although that was clear during the debate. >> the president knew that right? >> yeah there wasn't gazing about was it as bad as everybody thought. it was clear. we knew what to do. we had to prepare for a romney that was elastic. more elastic than we envisioned. and debates are not the president's strength. he did well three years ago but

didn't dominate. in that campaign we lost more than we won. you have certain events you're strong in. the decathlon say the high jump was not the one we were going to win, we just had to get enough point. we won the second debate and dominated the third debate. and the way voters look at the debates is as a package and by the end they said i think the president availed. after the first debate they were very curious about whether this was just an off night or whether something more fundamental was happening here and within the first five minutes of the second debate voters said okay he's back. and that was the bar we had to cross. it was challenging because for two weeks we were the game that couldn't shoot straight and romney had all the momentum and a lot of people thought he was on his way to the presidency. >> the 47% tape and you were not in the campaign strategy

room at the moment but at what point when you first heard that tape come out, what was your immediate reaction and i would have loved to be a fly on your blackberry watching the e-mails. >> he said what, what did he say. it's a remarkable statement when you think about it and of course when you make a misstatement like that and there are categories of -- >> a misstatement. >> i'll come back to that. we tend to call unfortunate statements in a campaign misstatements and the romney campaign went out to tried to characterize it as a misstatement. when you listen you understand that it was given with fears conviction and absolutely articulate and if you get a room full of republicans and

you're on your second bottle of wine that's where the conversation goes. it's not the first time i've heard it. and it's so fundamentally untrue. >> it wasn't a blooper. >> no, i'm saying he meant it. that this is a part of a modern mythology or perception of the country from an increasingly republican world or through the conservative entertainment complex where this is echoed all the time is what republicans are saying to each other. and it was a statement that so fundamentally demonstrated a misunderstanding of the country. because first off if you look at that 47% it's a bad idea if you're running for president of the united states to attack 47% of the country. that's a top line matter. but secondly there is a name for a lot of that 47% and it's

republicans. and the reason that that 47% doesn't pay federal income taxes for example is because of republican policies like the earned income tax credit. and you were talking about not only a lot of retirees, you're talking about the entire enlisted corp, the united states military and it was an awful statement. and i think he paid a tremendous price for it. it just as you conceive of a presidential campaign you don't want to push people out in a way. it's not a zero sum game where in order to get 50 plus 1 we're going to stigmatize 47%. politics is a game of addition. this is what david and the obama campaign understood so brilliantly is how do we assemble a coalition of voters to get a majority of the vote? to get a majority of the vote?